In a significant legal development, the Federal High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has terminated the criminal defamation case initiated by the Federal Government against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Case Withdrawn by Prosecution
The proceedings reached their conclusion on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, after the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation filed a formal notice of discontinuance. Justice C. N. Oji, presiding over the matter, acknowledged the prosecution's notice and accordingly struck out the charges listed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025.
The notice from the AGF's office, dated December 12, 2025, effectively brought the legal action to an end. The charges had originated from comments the senator, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), allegedly made during a television interview.
Senator's Reaction and Judicial Commentary
Speaking to journalists outside the courtroom, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan expressed that the court's decision validated her stance and reinforced her trust in Nigeria's legal system. "Today’s outcome affirms my belief in the rule of law," she stated. "I remain committed to serving my constituents and defending the democratic rights of all Nigerians."
The senator also extended her appreciation to her legal representatives, the people of Kogi Central, and her supporters nationwide for their unwavering solidarity throughout the ordeal.
In his remarks, Justice Oji noted that the development highlighted the importance of caution when exercising prosecutorial authority. "The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process," the judge stated.
Broader Implications for Free Speech
This case had sparked considerable public discourse on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and political accountability in Nigeria. Its dismissal marks a notable moment in the ongoing dialogue about the limits of state power against elected officials and the protection of democratic freedoms.
The resolution underscores the judiciary's role as a critical arbiter and brings closure to a matter that had drawn attention to the legal risks faced by public figures in their critique of governance.
