The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF) has defended the defamation charges filed against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, saying her actions and public statements against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello violated provisions of Nigeria’s penal code.
The AGF’s office stated this in response to a preliminary objection raised by Akpoti-Uduaghan, who is currently facing three counts of alleged criminal defamation and harmful imputation before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja.
According to the AGF, the charges were lawfully filed following petitions from both Akpabio and Bello, who accused the Kogi-born senator of making false, injurious, and damaging claims intended to tarnish their reputations.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Akpoti-Uduaghan’s public statements and social media posts in which she alleged that there had been an assassination attempt on her life — an incident she linked to political figures, including Akpabio and Bello.
Following investigations, the Office of the Attorney General filed charges in June 2025, accusing the senator of breaching Sections 391 and 393 of the Penal Code, which deal with injurious falsehood, defamation, and the publication of statements likely to harm another’s reputation.
She was subsequently arraigned before Justice A.S. Adepoju of the FCT High Court on June 19, where she pleaded not guilty to all three counts.
AGF Justifies Prosecution
In its formal reply to the senator’s preliminary objection, the AGF’s office maintained that the charges were validly brought before the court and consistent with constitutional provisions empowering the Attorney General to institute and undertake criminal proceedings on behalf of the state.
According to the response, “The prosecution of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is not politically motivated but based on the evidence of her actions and utterances which clearly contravene the Penal Code. Her conduct falls within the ambit of harmful imputation and defamation as stipulated under Nigerian law.”
The AGF added that the senator’s arguments about freedom of expression under the constitution cannot serve as a shield for acts that amount to criminal defamation or intentional harm to another person’s reputation.
“Freedom of expression does not extend to the publication of false, malicious, or injurious statements against others,” the AGF’s office said, urging the court to dismiss the objection and proceed to trial.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Defence
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, had earlier filed a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of the charges, describing them as a politically motivated attempt to silence her.
Through her legal team, she argued that the alleged offenses did not disclose any criminal element under Nigerian law, insisting that her statements were made in good faith and within her rights as a citizen and lawmaker.
Her counsel maintained that the charges were an abuse of court process and a ploy by powerful political figures to intimidate a female legislator known for her activism and anti-corruption stance.
Court Proceedings and Reactions
During her arraignment in June, Akpoti-Uduaghan pleaded not guilty and was granted bail on self-recognizance, being a serving senator. The court then adjourned the matter for hearing on the preliminary objection.
The case has since drawn significant public attention, with many observers viewing it as a test of the limits of free speech and accountability among Nigeria’s political elite.
Civil society groups and human rights advocates have also expressed concerns, warning that criminal defamation laws are increasingly being used to stifle dissent and public criticism.
However, government officials argue that while free speech is guaranteed, it must not degenerate into falsehoods capable of damaging reputations or inciting public unrest.
Legal Context
Under Nigerian law, particularly Sections 391 to 395 of the Penal Code applicable in the northern region and the FCT, defamation constitutes a criminal offense when a person makes or publishes a statement likely to harm another’s reputation, knowing it to be false or without lawful justification.
Conviction under these provisions can attract fines or imprisonment for up to two years, depending on the severity and the court’s discretion.
Next Steps
The FCT High Court is expected to rule soon on Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s objection. If the court upholds the AGF’s arguments, full trial proceedings will commence, during which the prosecution is expected to present witnesses and evidence linking her statements to the alleged offenses.
Meanwhile, both Akpabio and Bello have yet to make fresh public comments on the matter, though sources close to them insist they are only seeking legal redress to clear their names from damaging allegations.
As the legal battle continues, political analysts say the outcome could have broader implications for political discourse, social media regulation, and the boundaries of accountability among public officials in Nigeria’s democratic space.
