Defamation Drama Unfolds as Suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Faces Federal Arraignment in Abuja
In a legal and political showdown that could reshape perceptions within Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber, the embattled and currently suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, made a striking appearance at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja. Her arraignment follows a high-profile defamation charge filed against her by the Federal Government.
The courtroom stirred with activity by 10:30 am on Thursday, when Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, adorned in a modest but confident attire, entered the room, calmly taking her seat as she waited for the presiding judge to commence proceedings slated for 11:00 am. Her presence marked a significant moment in an unfolding political-legal drama that has caught the attention of both national media and political observers across the country.
The Core of the Controversy: A Criminal Charge of Defamation
The Federal Government, through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mohammed Abubakar, has filed a criminal suit against the Senator, accusing her of making highly damaging and defamatory remarks against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
The charge, formally registered as Case No. CR/297/25, lists Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan as the sole defendant. However, the political and reputational implications ripple far beyond the courtroom. At the heart of the charge are statements allegedly made by the Senator during a live interview aired on Channels Television’s flagship political programme, Politics Today, on April 3, 2025.
During this appearance, the Senator purportedly leveled grave accusations against both Akpabio and Bello. She is said to have claimed that the duo conspired to orchestrate her assassination, disguising the plot to appear as a spontaneous mob attack, specifically planned to take place outside of Abuja.
The Federal Government maintains that these comments were made either with full knowledge of their falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth, thereby constituting criminal defamation under the country’s penal laws.
Chilling Allegations on Live Television
One of the most contentious statements attributed to the Senator during the April 3 programme was her claim that the withdrawal of her security detail by the Senate President was an intentional act meant to render her vulnerable to attacks. She allegedly stated:
“Let’s ask the Senate President why in the first instance did he withdraw my security, if not to make me vulnerable to attacks? He then emphasised that I should be killed, but I should be killed in Kogi. What is important to me is to stay alive because dead men tell no tales. Who is going to get justice for me?”
Another section of the interview cited in the charge claims she directly linked Akpabio and Bello in a sinister meeting where her assassination was allegedly plotted. According to the charge sheet, she said:
“It was part of the meeting, the discussions that Akpabio had with Yahaya Bello that night, to eliminate me. When he met with him, he then emphasised that I should be killed, but I should be killed in Kogi.”
Federal prosecutors argue that these remarks not only undermine public trust in key political leaders but also have the potential to incite unrest, generate fear, and discredit governmental authority.
A Shocking Private Allegation Made Public
Beyond the television interview, the Federal Government has introduced further evidence to build its case against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The charge sheet includes a statement she allegedly made during a private phone conversation with one Sandra C. Duru on March 27, 2025.
In this audio conversation, which the prosecution claims to possess, the Senator allegedly made an even more disturbing allegation involving the tragic death of Iniubong Umoren, a young Nigerian woman whose gruesome killing had previously sparked national outrage.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is accused of saying:
“That girl that was killed, what’s her name, umm Imoren Iniubong, her organs were actually used for the wife, because the wife was really ill… when they killed the girl, and her organs were used for the wife.”
The prosecution argues that this claim not only defames Senate President Akpabio and his family but also reopens old wounds for the victim’s relatives and the general public. They insist that the Senator should have known such a serious allegation, unsubstantiated by any verifiable evidence, could cause irreparable damage to Akpabio’s reputation and social standing.
Akpabio, Bello, and Four Others to Testify
The prosecution has compiled a list of witnesses expected to testify during the trial. Among them are Senate President Godswill Akpabio, former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello, and four additional individuals whose identities have yet to be publicly disclosed. These witnesses are expected to provide oral and documented evidence aimed at proving the Senator’s statements were not only malicious but also factually incorrect and injurious.
Legal experts following the case believe the inclusion of high-profile complainants as witnesses indicates how seriously the Federal Government is treating the matter.
The Senator’s Silence and Anticipated Defense
Since the charges became public, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has refrained from making detailed public statements, choosing instead to let her legal team handle communications. Close aides describe her as calm but resolved, maintaining that she is being persecuted for speaking out against perceived injustices and political marginalisation.
Her lawyers are expected to challenge the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the alleged phone recording. They may argue that the statements attributed to the Senator fall within the purview of political speech and public interest commentary—a defense that could test the elasticity of Nigeria’s laws on defamation and freedom of speech.
Broader Implications for Political Discourse and Free Speech
This legal battle comes at a time when Nigeria is grappling with deepening tensions between political elites and growing public concern over freedom of expression. For many, the case raises important questions: Where is the line between defamation and legitimate criticism? How can whistleblowers be protected without undermining the dignity of public office?
Critics of the prosecution argue that the case may set a dangerous precedent, stifling critical voices in the National Assembly and discouraging lawmakers from exposing misconduct. Human rights advocates have urged the judiciary to handle the matter with caution, ensuring that due process is followed and that the trial does not become a tool for political retribution.
Supporters of Akpabio and Bello, on the other hand, insist that unchecked speech can do irreversible harm, especially when amplified on national platforms. They argue that public figures also deserve legal recourse when their reputations are falsely tarnished, especially with accusations as severe as attempted murder or organ trafficking.
The Political Context: A Charged Atmosphere
The case against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan unfolds against a backdrop of political tension both within the Senate and across Nigeria’s political spectrum. Her suspension from the Red Chamber earlier this year had already stirred controversy, with many alleging that it was linked to her outspoken stance against certain policies and actions endorsed by Senate leadership.
Observers believe that this criminal charge may be part of a broader power struggle within the political elite, especially as the nation begins gearing up for the 2027 general elections. The involvement of both a sitting Senate President and a former governor makes the trial politically explosive.
It remains to be seen whether the courts will focus strictly on the legal merits of the case or whether political undercurrents will shape the trajectory of proceedings.
Next Steps: Trial Dates and Judicial Oversight
With the arraignment now underway, the court is expected to fix preliminary hearing dates and review pre-trial motions filed by both parties. The defense is reportedly preparing to request the dismissal of certain charges, arguing that the statements cited either fall outside the realm of criminal defamation or lack the evidentiary threshold needed for prosecution.
Meanwhile, public interest in the case continues to grow. Civil society groups, media watchdogs, and political commentators are all closely watching the court proceedings, recognising the trial’s potential to influence how freedom of speech and defamation are interpreted in Nigerian law going forward.
Final Thoughts: Justice, Politics, and the Court of Public Opinion
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s defamation trial is more than a routine court case—it is a powerful test of Nigeria’s commitment to justice, freedom of expression, and democratic accountability. At its heart, the case raises urgent questions about how far public officials and private citizens can go in calling out perceived wrongdoing without facing legal retaliation.
As the court evaluates the evidence, many Nigerians are watching closely, not just for a verdict, but for what it will mean for political speech in the country. The line between speaking truth to power and defaming authority figures is often thin—and in this case, it is being put under a microscope.
This moment forces the nation to confront a difficult question: Is Nigeria prepared to protect bold voices in politics, or will such voices be silenced under the weight of criminal charges? The way this case unfolds may set a precedent for how political discourse is handled in the years ahead.
Ultimately, the trial’s impact won’t rest solely on the judge’s ruling. It will also depend on how Nigerians, institutions, and the media react. Will this moment spark greater openness, or chill dissent across political spaces? Whatever the outcome, this case has already become a mirror reflecting the current health of democracy and justice in Nigeria.