*Court To Hear Her Preliminary Objection Oct. 27
THE Federal Government, on Tuesday, September 23, alleged a deliberate attempt to frustrate it from calling witnesses to testify against the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The Federal Government, in the charge, marked: CR/297/25, had alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was on Tuesday, allowed back into the National Assembly Complex after serving out a six-month suspension by the senate, made false and defamatory remarks when she appeared as a guest on a live television programme.
The government specifically accused her of making false imputation that tarnished the image of both the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
The latest allegation came after Akpoti-Uduaghna, through her team of lawyers, led by Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN), told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama, to halt the Federal Government from opening its case in the defamation charge against her.
Providing the particulars of the offence in count-one of the charge, the government told the court that the defendant committed the alleged crime on April 3 during a live broadcast, when she alleged that some politicians, including Akpabio and Bello, were plotting to assassinate her.
It stated that the senator, by her claim, committed an offence under 391 of the Penal Code, Cap 89, Laws of the Federation (1990), punishable under Section 392 of the same law.
When the case was called up on Tuesday, government’s lawyer, David Kaswe, told the court his witness was available for the commencement of hearing, noting: “My lord, the matter was fixed for prosecution to open its case. We are prepared and have our witness in court.
“Subject to the convenience of the court, we are ready to proceed with the business of the day.”
However, West-Idahosa drew the attention of the court to a notice of preliminary objection his client filed to challenge its jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
He told the court that the objection was premised on the fact that “there has been abuse of prosecutorial powers,” by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), which stripped the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the charge as constituted.
He added: “This is not a challenge to the counts or elements of the offence, but a challenge to the validity of the action itself. Assuming the court agrees with us, there will be no need to proceed with the trial.
“This is a threshold matter and we have served the prosecution through the office of the AGF. We have not received any response from them.”
He also stated that the proof of evidence the prosecution served on the defendant did not contain full extrajudicial statements of the proposed witnesses, adding: “What was frontloaded were mere summaries. We want to know what each person said.
“We are entitled to full disclosure as part of the facilities we are entitled to be provided with to prepare our defence.”
Kaswe, dissatisfied with the development, decried that though the defendant was arraigned on June 19, she waited till last Thursday to file the objection, saying his department at the Federal Ministry of Justice was yet to receive a copy of the said objection, since it was served directly on the AGF.
“The AGF has not been on sit. He has been at UNGA and he could not act on the documents. The process has not been minuted to my office.
“This is the reason why phone number and address of Counsel are contained on the face of court processes. The defendant filed, but did not oblige Counsel on record a copy of the process.
“What is happening is nothing but a calculated attempt to frustrate hearing of prosecution’s case today.”
Relying on Sections 221, 306 and 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Kaswe prayed the court to “stop the defendant from delaying criminal proceedings before court,” saying “criminal proceedings ought to be speedily tried.
“The Court of Appeal, in the case of Onnoghen Vs FRN, 2019, LPELR, 47524, stated clearly that objections calculated to stall proceeding in a criminal trial should not be entertained.
“Granting request of the defendant will not only occasion hardship on us, but will also defeat the purpose of the ACJA.”
In a brief ruling, Justice Chizoba Orji said she was minded to allow the Federal Government to file its response to the preliminary objection the defendant raised against her trial.
The Judge consequently fixed October 27 to hear the objection.
