The planned commencement of trial in the cybercrime charges brought against suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, before the Federal High Court in Abuja was stalled on Monday following an objection raised by her counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN.

Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a six-count charge with suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, brought under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, brought against her by the Federal Government.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was arraigned on June 30 and granted bail on self-recognition, is alleged to have transmitted false and injurious information via electronic means with the intention of maligning, inciting, endangering lives and breaching public order.

The charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, stated that Akpoti-Uduaghan, while addressing a gathering on April 4, 202,5, in Ihima, Kogi State, alleged that the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, instructed former Governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed in Kogi State.

She was alleged to have repeated the same claim during a television interview, asserting that the Senate President and the former Governor of Kogi State plotted to kill her in the state.

Some of the counts in the charge read, “That on or about April 1, 2025, while addressing a crowd of people at Ihima Community, Kogi State, you — Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan — intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit:

“…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…” And you, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, as the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same Act”.

Another charge states that, on or about April 1, 2025, while addressing a crowd of people at Ihima Community, Kogi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, you — Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan — intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit:

“…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…” And you, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Yahaya Adoza Bello, a former Governor of Kogi State. You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same section of the Act”.

At the resumed sitting, the prosecuting counsel, David Kaswe, informed the court that the business of the day was for the prosecution to open its case by calling its first witness.

Kaswe, who had arranged for a television screen to be mounted in the courtroom in preparation for the proceedings, told the court that the prosecution had its witness present and was ready to proceed.

In response, defence counsel, West-Idahosa, raised concerns about the possibility of the prosecution opening its case.

West-Idahosa told the court that his client had filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.

He explained that the objection was not directed at the nature of the charge itself, but at what he described as an alleged abuse of the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The defence lawyer also complained that they had not been served with copies of the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Although Kaswe argued strongly that the objection raised by the defendant ought not to stall the business of the day, Justice Umar insisted that the prosecution must first respond to the objection.

The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, stated that he intended to first determine the preliminary objection raised by the defence before taking any further steps in the matter.

He consequently adjourned the case to October 20 for the hearing of the objection and commencement of the trial.