Court Strikes Out FG’s Criminal Charges Against Senator Natasha
An Abuja High Court has struck out the criminal charges filed by the Federal Government against the Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, effectively ending a high-profile case that triggered nationwide debate.
The ruling was delivered on Thursday after the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) filed a Notice of Discontinuance, formally withdrawing the charges.
Why the Case Was Dropped
Court documents show that the Notice of Discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, led to the striking out of the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025.
The charges, which included criminal defamation and related offences, arose from comments allegedly made by Akpoti-Uduaghan during a televised interview.
Judge’s Remarks
Presiding judge, Justice C. N. Oji, acknowledged the notice and struck out the case accordingly.
In his remarks, Justice Oji noted that the development highlights the importance of restraint in the exercise of prosecutorial powers.
“The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process,” the judge said.
FG Confirms Withdrawal
Counsel representing the Federal Government confirmed the withdrawal in open court.
“On behalf of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, we have filed a notice of discontinuance in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. The decision was taken in the overall interest of justice and public confidence in the legal system,” he stated.
Natasha Reacts
Reacting after the court session, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan described the ruling as a vindication.
“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, while thanking her legal team and supporters.
Public Reaction
The case had generated intense public scrutiny, with civil society organisations and rights groups previously criticising the prosecution as an attempt to stifle free speech and political engagement.
The court’s decision brings months of legal controversy and national discourse to a close.
