spot_img
6.1 C
Munich
spot_img
Thursday, January 15, 2026

BREAKING: Court drops FG’s criminal case against Senator Natasha

Must read

An Abuja High Court on Thursday terminated the criminal proceedings instituted by the Federal Government against the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, bringing an end to a case that had drawn widespread public attention.

The development followed the filing of a Notice of Discontinuance by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, which led the court to strike out the charges bordering on criminal defamation and other related allegations.

The case arose from remarks reportedly made by the lawmaker during a televised interview, a matter that later ignited national conversations on free speech, political accountability and the reach of state prosecution.

Court documents indicated that the Notice of Discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, effectively halted further action in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025.

While delivering his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice C. N. Oji, acknowledged the withdrawal and formally struck out the case.

“The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process,” he said.

Lawyers 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 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 said.

Following the ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan welcomed the outcome, describing it as a reaffirmation of her faith in the judiciary and democratic principles.

“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 appreciating her legal team and supporters.

The decision comes after months of legal wrangling and public debate, with rights groups and civil society organisations earlier faulting the case as an attempt to suppress dissent and political expression.

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest article