 |
| Natasha. |
The new date was set on October 21 after court activities resumed, having been halted the previous day due to the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest led by activist Omoyele Sowore.
The protest had disrupted proceedings on October 20, which was the original date fixed for the trial.
On Monday, Justice Umar’s courtroom, located on the third floor of the Federal High Court, remained locked as judicial operations were suspended.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, in the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, is accused of transmitting false and damaging information electronically with the intent to defame, incite, endanger lives, and cause public disorder.
The senator allegedly claimed during a gathering on April 4 in Ihima, Kogi State, that the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, had instructed former Kogi Governor, Yahaya Bello, to have her assassinated in the state.
She was further alleged to have repeated the accusation during a television interview, asserting that both men conspired to eliminate her in Kogi.
The charge was filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
Justice Umar had earlier, on September 22, postponed the case following an objection raised by the defence team.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was first arraigned on June 30 on a six-count charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar.
She was granted bail afterwards, and the case was adjourned to September 22 for the commencement of the trial.
However, during the last adjourned sitting, when prosecuting counsel David Kaswe was about to call the first witness, defence counsel Ehiogie West-Idahosa raised a preliminary objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
West-Idahosa told the court that the objection was not directed at the content of the charges but was based on what he described as an abuse of prosecutorial authority by the Attorney General of the Federation.
He also argued that the defence had not received the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Although Kaswe contended that the objection should not halt the proceedings, Justice Umar ruled that the prosecution must first respond to the defence’s objection before the case could continue.
The judge stated that he would decide on the objection before proceeding further with the matter.
0 Comments
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed on this platform as comments were freely made by each person under his or her own volition or responsibility and were neither suggested nor dictated by the owners of News PLATFORM or any of their contracted staff. So we take no liability whatsoever for such comments.
Please take note!