Abuja High Court strikes out Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan criminal charges, ending high-profile legal battle over alleged defamatory comments
The Abuja High Court on Thursday struck out criminal charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the lawmaker representing Kogi Central, effectively ending a high-profile case that sparked national debate on freedom of expression and prosecutorial limits.
Also read: Nigeria’s economy shows fragile stabilisation, ICAN warns
Court records showed that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation filed a Notice of Discontinuance, prompting Justice C. N. Oji to formally strike out the criminal defamation and related charges previously brought against the senator.
The case stemmed from comments allegedly made by Akpoti-Uduaghan during a televised interview, which had drawn intense public scrutiny and debate around political accountability and democratic rights.
“The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process,” Justice Oji said, noting the importance of measured prosecutorial action.
Counsel to the Federal Government confirmed the withdrawal of the charges in open court.
“On behalf of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, we have filed a notice of discontinuance in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. This decision is taken in the overall interest of justice and public confidence in the legal system,” he stated.
Reacting after the court ruling, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan described the outcome as a vindication of her position.
“Today’s outcome affirms my belief in the rule of law. I remain committed to serving my constituents and defending the democratic rights of all Nigerians,” she said, expressing gratitude to her legal team and supporters for their steadfast backing.
Also read: Nigeria’s economy shows fragile stabilisation, ICAN warns
The striking out of the charges follows months of legal controversy and sustained public discourse, with civil society organisations and rights groups previously condemning the case as an attempt to stifle free speech and political engagement.
