Natasha in court accuses govt of double standards for ignoring her 12 previous petition to prosecute her
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
***********************************
Natasha filed preliminary objections before both the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court and the Abuja Federal High Court, challenging their jurisdiction and insisting that the AGF has no locus standi to prosecute a private defamation case.
Her legal team, led by four SANs – Roland Otaru, also a law professor, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, J.J. Usman, and M.J. Numa – argued that the charges are “unconstitutional, frivolous, and designed to intimidate opposition voices.”
The defence submitted exhibits showing that her comments fell within the ambit of public discourse and media commentary, stressing that prosecuting her statements as crimes is inconsistent with democratic norms.
“Defamation matters are inherently civil in nature and attempting to criminalise them constitutes intimidation, suppresses free speech, and represents a misuse of the criminal justice system,” Natasha’s lawyers insisted.
They also accused the authorities of selective justice, alleging that while her petitions over threats to her life by the complainants were ignored, the same institutions hastily filed charges against her.
She said the disparity is a violation of her constitutional rights, “particularly Section 42, and represents discriminatory prosecution because of my opposition political affiliation.”
***********************************
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP, Kogi Centra) on Monday amassed four Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) to launch a strong legal offensive at the Federal Government, describing the criminal defamation charges filed against her as a brazen act of political persecution and exhibition of double standards.
She argued through her lawyers in a preliminary objection seeking the dismissal of the six counts filed against her by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) that while the government was quick to file charges against her based on defamation allegation by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the same government ignored her own earlier 12 petitions, some of which were against Akpabio.
The charges – filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 – were brought following petitions by Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello over remarks she allegedly made during a public address and a television interview.
Natasha’s arraignment on June 20 drew national attention, with many opposition figures alleging that the case is politically motivated. She was granted bail on self-recognition after pleading not guilty.
The lawsuit, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, is being prosecuted by federal Director of Public Prosecution Mohammed Abubakar.
In her defence on Monday, Natasha filed preliminary objections before both the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court and the Abuja Federal High Court, challenging their jurisdiction and insisting that the AGF has no locus standi to prosecute a private defamation case.
Her legal team, led by four SANs – Roland Otaru, also a law professor, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, J.J. Usman, and M.J. Numa – argued that the charges are “unconstitutional, frivolous, and designed to intimidate opposition voices.”
The defence submitted exhibits showing that her comments fell within the ambit of public discourse and media commentary, stressing that prosecuting her statements as crimes is inconsistent with democratic norms.
“Defamation matters are inherently civil in nature and attempting to criminalise them constitutes intimidation, suppresses free speech, and represents a misuse of the criminal justice system,” Natasha’s lawyers insisted.
They also accused the authorities of selective justice, alleging that while her petitions over threats to her life by the complainants were ignored, the same institutions hastily filed charges against her.
She said the disparity is a violation of her constitutional rights, “particularly Section 42, and represents discriminatory prosecution because of my opposition political affiliation.”
The charges centre on her claim that Akpabio allegedly instructed Bello to have her assassinated in Kogi – a statement she reportedly made at a public gathering in Ihima on April 4 in the state and later repeated in a television interview.
Prosecutors argued that the statements are false, malicious, and capable of inciting violence, endangering lives, and breaching public order.
However, her defence team urged the FCT High Court to dismiss the charges at the preliminary stage because allowing the matter to proceed would waste taxpayers’ money and also undermine the credibility of the justice system.
Natasha’s pushback came a few hours after the Abuja Federal High Court adjourned the case to October 20, following an objection raised by her counsel, West-Idahosa.
Womanifesto Network petitions UN over Natasha’s treatment
In a related development, a coalition of women’s rights organisations, has taken the standoff between Natasha and the Senate to the United Nations, accusing the Senate leadership of gender-based discrimination.
The Womanifesto Network – representing over 350 organisations – argued in a formal complaint submitted on Monday to UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, that the Senate’s actions breach Nigeria’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which the country ratified in 1985.
“This is about the integrity of our democracy. If a Senator can be silenced for reporting harassment, what hope do ordinary women have?” wondered the group’s convener, Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi.
The petition urged the UN to pressure Nigeria’s government and the Senate to comply with a Federal High Court ruling by reinstating Natasha immediately, and to establish an impartial investigation into her harassment claim.
Signatories to the petition include Amnesty International Nigeria, FIDA Nigeria, Baobab for Women’s Human Rights, Women in Management, Business and Public Service (WIMBIZ), and Stand to End Rape.
The activists warned that the Senate’s refusal to comply with the court order sends a dangerous signal to women in politics.
“This case shows that sexual harassment in politics isn’t just a personal violation – it’s a threat to women’s participation in governance,” the petition said.
Natasha went public on February 20 with allegation that Akpabio sexually harassed her, a claim Akpabio denied.
Days later, the Senate Ethics and Privileges Committee recommended her six-month suspension, citing breaches of parliamentary procedure.
The suspension stripped her of salary, security, and access to the Chamber, drawing outrage from civil society groups who said the punishment is retaliatory and disproportionate.
On July 4, the Abuja Federal High Court ruled the suspension excessive and unconstitutional, and ordered her reinstatement.
But the Senate has blocked her return, arguing that the judgment contains no binding reinstatement order and remains “under litigation.”
Read also:
NNPP joins PDP to blast APC for picking holes in Atiku’s warning to Tinubu over national hunger
 to launch a strong legal offensive at the Federal Government ....){kind=link}