Defamation Charge: FG alleges plot to scuttle Natasha’s trial

… as court fixes Oct 27 to hear defendant’s preliminary objection

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA–The Federal Government, on Tuesday, alleged a deliberate attempt to frustrate it from calling witnesses to testify against the embattled Senator for Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

The allegation came after the lawmaker, through her team of lawyers led by Mr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, persuaded the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, sitting at Maitama, to halt FG from opening its case in the defamation charge that was entered against her.

In the charge marked: CR/297/25, FG alleged that the defendant who was earlier handed a six-month suspension by the Senate, made false and defamatory remarks when she appeared as a guest on a live television program.

It specifically accused Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan of making false imputation that tarnished the image of both the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

Providing the particulars of the offence in count-one of the charge, FG, told the court that the defendant committed the alleged crime on April 3, during a live broadcast on Channels Television’s Politics Today, when she alleged that some politicians, including Akpabio and Bello, were plotting to assassinate her.

According to FG, the defendant, by her claim, committed an offence under 391 of the Penal Code, Cap 89, Laws of the Federation, 1990, and punishable under section 392 of the same law.

When the matter was called up on Tuesday, FG’s lawyer, Mr. David Kaswe, told the court that his witness was available for the commencement of hearing.

“My lord the matter was fixed for prosecution to open its case. We are prepared and have our witness in court. Subject to the convenience of the court, we are ready to proceed with the business of the day,” Kaswe added.

However, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Mr. Idahosa, SAN, drew the attention of the court to a notice of preliminary objection his client filed to challenge its jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

He told the court that the objection was premised on the fact that “there has been abuse of prosecutorial powers,” by the Attorney-General of the Federation, a situation he said stripped the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the charge as constituted.

“This is not a challenge to the counts or elements of the offence, but a challenge to the validity of the action itself.
“Assuming the court agrees with us, there will be no need to proceed with the trial.

“This is a threshold matter and we have served the prosecution through the office of the AGF. We have not received any response from them,” Idahosa, SAN, added.

Besides, he noted that the proof of evidence the prosecution served on the defendant did not contain full extrajudicial statements of the proposed witnesses.

“What was frontloaded were mere summaries. We want to know what each person said. We are entitled to full disclosure as part of the facilities we are entitled to be provided with to prepare our defence,” Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer further submitted.

Dissatisfied with the development, FG’s lawyer decried that though the defendant was arraigned on June 19, she waited till last Thursday to file the objection.

The prosecution counsel told the court that his department at the Ministry of Justice was yet to receive a copy of the said objection since it was served directly on the AGF.

“The AGF has not been on sit. He has been at UNGA and he could not act on the documents. The process has not been minuted to my office.

“This is the reason why phone number and address of counsel are contained on the face of court processes. The defendant filed but did not oblige counsel on record a copy of the process.

“What is happening is nothing but a calculated attempt to frustrate hearing of prosecution’s case today,” FG’s lawyer fumed.

Relying on sections 221, 306 and 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, FG prayed the court to “stop the defendant from delaying criminal proceedings before court.”

“Criminal proceedings ought to be speedily tried. The Court of Appeal in the case of Onnoghen Vs FRN, 2019, LPELR, 47524, stated clearly that objections calculated to stall proceeding in a criminal trial should not be entertained.

“Granting request of the defendant will not only occasion hardship on us but will also defeat the purpose of the ACJA,” the prosecution counsel insisted.

In a brief ruling, Justice Chizoba Orji said she was minded to allow FG to file its response to the preliminary objection the defendant raised against her trial.

Consequently, she fixed October 27 to hear the objection.

The post Defamation Charge: FG alleges plot to scuttle Natasha’s trial appeared first on Vanguard News.