A Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja has adjourned further hearing in the trial of Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on alleged cybercrime offences to November 24.

The hearing earlier scheduled for October 20 could not hold on Monday owing to the protest by some individuals calling for the release of the detained self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

The protest disrupted normal activities in some parts of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Monday, preventing most people from accessing their offices and work places.

An enquiry at the court on Tuesday revealed that the trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar has rescheduled further hearing in the case till November 24.

Akpoti-Uduaghan is being prosecuted on a six-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025 brought under the Cybercrimes Prohibition, Prevention, etc (Amendment) Act 2024.

She is, among others, alleged to have  transmitted false and injurious information via electronic means with the intention to malign, incite, and endanger lives and breach public order.

Among the particulars of the charge are claims that Akpoti-Uduaghan, while addressing a gathering on April 4th 2025 in Ihima, Kogi State alleged that the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio instructed ex-governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed in Kogi State. 

She was also alleged to have, in a television interview, repeated similar claims, to the effect that the Senate President and Bello plotted to kill her in Kogi State.

At the last hearing on September 22 the prosecution’s plan to open its case by calling witnesses was stalled owing to a notice of preliminary objection filed by the defence.

Defence lawyers, Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN) told the court that his client filed a notice of preliminary objection to challenge the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

West-Idahosa said the objection is not to the nature of the charge, but the alleged abuse of the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

The defence lawyer also complained about not being served with copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

Lawyer to the prosecution l, David Kaswe argued strenuously that the objection filed by the defendant should not be allowed to stall the court’s business for the day.

But, Justice Mohammed Umar, who noted that the prosecution was yet to respond to the defendant’s preliminary objection, insisted that the prosecution must first respond to the objection.

Justice Umar expressed his willingness to first, determine the objection raised by the defence before taking any further steps in the case.

Source; The Nation News