Senator Natasha’s Cybercrime Trial Stalled Over Preliminary Objection

The long-awaited cybercrime trial of suspended Kogi Central senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, was stalled on Monday, September 22, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. This was after her legal team raised a preliminary objection that halted the planned commencement of proceedings.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was arraigned on June 30 on a six-count charge of alleged cybercrime against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello, had earlier pleaded not guilty and secured bail. The prosecution had been scheduled to open its case at Monday’s sitting, but the defence successfully pressed for its objection to be addressed first.

Edo Councillors Commence Impeachment Of Acting Council Chairmen

Defence Moves to Stop Trial

When the matter was called, prosecuting counsel, David Kaswe, announced readiness to proceed, noting that the first witness was present and that a television screen had been installed in the courtroom for electronic evidence presentation.

However, defence counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN), objected to the commencement of trial. He argued that his client’s preliminary objection must first be resolved, describing the charges as a product of what he termed an “abuse of prosecutorial powers” by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

West-Idahosa clarified that his objection was not targeted at the charges themselves but at the manner in which they were instituted. He further complained that the prosecution had failed to serve the defence team with the written statements of its witnesses, a lapse he said violated the principle of fair hearing.

“The objection goes to the root of the case and must be determined before the prosecution can proceed,” West-Idahosa submitted, urging the court to rule on the matter before trial begins.

Judge Adjourns to October

Although Kaswe pleaded with the court not to allow the objection to delay proceedings, Justice Mohammed Umar held that the motion raised by the defence was fundamental and could not be ignored. He therefore adjourned the case to October 20, 2025, for the hearing and determination of the preliminary objection.

This means that the trial itself cannot begin until the court resolves the issues raised by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyers, prolonging the case that has already drawn significant public and political attention.

Allegations Against Natasha

The charges against Senator Natasha are contained in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024. She is accused of transmitting false and injurious information calculated to incite violence and endanger the lives and reputations of high-profile political leaders.

One of the counts alleges that on April 4, 2025, while addressing a gathering in Ihima, Okehi LGA of Kogi State, Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed that Senate President Akpabio instructed Yahaya Bello to arrange her assassination.

The charge reads in part:

“…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…”

The prosecution argues that the remarks were defamatory and capable of inciting unrest, thereby constituting an offence under Section 24 (2) (c) of the Cybercrimes Act.

Another count makes a similar allegation concerning Bello, accusing Akpoti-Uduaghan of transmitting information that could harm his reputation and endanger his life. Both counts, among the six, carry penalties under the amended cybercrime law.

Political Undertones

The case has been politically charged from the outset. Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended from the Senate six months ago over alleged breaches of legislative rules. Her current legal troubles stem from a petition lodged by Senate President Akpabio, who accused her of making reckless public statements that not only tarnished his image but also endangered his safety.

The police investigated the petition, and their findings formed the basis of the charges now before Justice Umar. For many observers, the trial represents a test of the Cybercrimes Act’s expanded provisions, which critics argue could be wielded to stifle political dissent.

Defence Strategy

By raising a preliminary objection, Natasha’s legal team appears to be pursuing a two-pronged strategy: questioning the validity of the charges and challenging the legitimacy of the prosecution’s approach.

Their claim of prosecutorial abuse suggests they may argue that the Attorney General’s office is being used for political ends rather than strictly legal purposes. In addition, their insistence on being served witness statements points to concerns about due process and transparency.

Legal analysts say if the court upholds the objection, parts of the case—or even the entire prosecution—could be struck out. If overruled, however, the trial will proceed, with potentially damaging testimony for the suspended senator.

For now, the adjournment buys Natasha some time, but it also prolongs uncertainty. The prosecution, having prepared its witnesses and evidence, will have to wait at least another month before any testimony can be heard.

Meanwhile, the case continues to attract national attention, both for its high-profile defendants and its implications for freedom of expression under Nigeria’s cybercrime laws.

With the next hearing set for October 20, 2025, all eyes will be on Justice Umar’s ruling on the objection. That decision will determine whether the trial proceeds swiftly or faces further delays in what is already shaping up to be one of the most closely watched political-legal battles of the year.