The suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, will appear in court on Tuesday following a summons. This development was confirmed by her lead lawyer, West Idahosa (SAN), on Sunday.
Idahosa noted that it remains unclear whether the Federal Government will formally arraign Akpoti-Uduaghan on that day. Regardless of the government’s intentions, he stressed that his client, as a law-abiding citizen, will comply fully with the court’s instructions.
The case stems from criminal charges brought against Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Federal Government, filed through the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mohammed Abubakar. She faces allegations of making defamatory statements in a live television broadcast and during a private phone conversation.
These remarks were reportedly directed at the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
The charges, which were officially filed on May 16, 2025, at the Federal Capital Territory High Court under file number CR/297/25, focus on a statement Akpoti-Uduaghan made on April 3, 2025.
During her appearance on Channels TV’s Politics Today program, she claimed that Akpabio and Bello had conspired to have her killed. The statement quoted her as saying, “It was part of the meeting, the discussions that Akpabio had with Yahaya Bello that night— to eliminate me… he then emphasised that I should be killed in Kogi.”
In addition to this, the government alleges that on March 27, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan made further defamatory claims in a phone call with Dr. Sandra Duru. She is said to have accused Akpabio of being involved in organ harvesting linked to the late Iniubong Umoren, supposedly benefiting Akpabio’s sick wife.
Key witnesses in the trial include Akpabio, Bello, and four other individuals who have been named by the prosecution.
Speaking with The PUNCH, Idahosa expressed confidence in their legal defense. “If the case is called tomorrow, we will respond accordingly with our client. The issue of protest is irrelevant to us — we are lawyers, and our focus is on defending charges we believe can be contested. Protests are the domain of civil societies and others in that terrain,” he said.
Idahosa further clarified, “Our client is a law-abiding citizen. Why wouldn’t she be there? It’s a summons we have undertaken. Only disrespectful institutions that disregard court orders would fail to appear, and she is not in that category.”
Regarding the possibility of an arraignment, he added, “We don’t know. We saw a notice of amended charges. We don’t know what they are trying to do. They’ve amended the charges once and could do so again—it’s their decision.”
