Court Adjourns Senator Natasha’s Cybercrime Case, Sets New Hearing Date

Court Adjourns Senator Natasha’s Cybercrime Case, Sets New Hearing Date

The scheduled trial of suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on cybercrime charges was on Monday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja following an objection raised by her counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN.

Akpoti-Uduaghan is standing trial on a six-count charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, by the Federal Government.

The senator, who was arraigned on June 30 and granted bail on self-recognition, is accused of transmitting false and injurious information electronically with intent to malign, incite, endanger lives, and disturb public order.

According to the charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, Akpoti-Uduaghan allegedly told a gathering in Ihima, Kogi State, on April 4, 2025, that Senate President Godswill Akpabio directed former Governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed.

She was also said to have repeated the allegation during a television interview, insisting both men plotted to eliminate her in Kogi State.

Some of the counts in the charge read, “That on or about April 1, 2025, while addressing a crowd of people at Ihima Community, Kogi State, you — Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan — intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit:

“…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…” And you, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, as the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same Act”.

While prosecution counsel Kaswe argued that the defence objection should not derail proceedings, the trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, held that the issue must first be determined before the trial could proceed.

He therefore adjourned the case to October 20 for hearing of the objection and possible commencement of trial.