FG Withdraws Criminal Defamation Case Against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Criminal Defamation Case Against Senator Natasha Officially withdrawn By FG

 The Federal Government of Nigeria has officially withdrawn the criminal defamation and cyberbullying case it instituted against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, bringing to an end a controversial legal battle that generated intense national debate, political tension, and widespread public interest. The decision, which effectively terminates the prosecution against the senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, marks a significant development in a case that many Nigerians viewed as a test of free speech, political accountability, and the limits of criminal prosecution in democratic governance.

Certified court documents obtained in Abuja over the weekend confirm that the Office of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) formally filed a Notice of Discontinuance before the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, on December 12, 2025.  The filing legally brought the criminal proceedings against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to an end.
According to the documents, the withdrawal was carried out in line with the provisions of Sections 108(1), 108(2)(a), and 108(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, as well as under the inherent powers of the court to discontinue proceedings when deemed necessary in the interest of justice.  The Notice of Discontinuance was signed on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation by senior officials of the Department of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF) and was duly certified by the court.

The criminal case against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was filed in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following petitions submitted by the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, and a former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello. At the heart of the controversy were comments made by the senator during a televised interview on Politics Today, a prime-time political program on Channels Television anchored by renowned journalist Seun Okinbaloye. During the interview, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that there were plans to eliminate her, a claim that immediately stirred public concern, media scrutiny, and political reactions across the country. Rather than triggering an open investigation into the alleged threats, the senator was subsequently arraigned and charged with criminal defamation and cyberbullying, a development that many critics described as alarming and politically motivated.

The charges against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan centered on alleged defamatory statements and online conduct linked to her televised remarks and subsequent public engagements. Prosecutors argued that her comments damaged the reputations of the individuals mentioned in the petitions and constituted criminal defamation under existing laws. However, legal experts, civil society groups, and political observers questioned the use of criminal defamation laws in a democratic setting, arguing that such provisions are often used to suppress dissent and silence whistle-blowers.
The case quickly became symbolic of broader debates around:

• Freedom of expression
• The criminalisation of speech
• Political intimidation
• The safety of elected officials who raise security concerns

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had consistently maintained that her comments were made out of genuine fear for her safety. According to reports, she formally petitioned the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), requesting an investigation into the alleged threats to her life. Supporters of the senator argued that instead of addressing her security concerns, the state responded by prosecuting her for speaking out, an action they said could discourage public officials from reporting threats or wrongdoing.
This sequence of events intensified public outrage and amplified calls for the charges to be dropped.
The prominence of the case was further heightened by the list of witnesses lined up by the prosecution.
Among those listed were

• Kogi State Governor, Usman Ododo
• Ambassador Reno Omokri, who was newly sworn in at the time
• Senator Ekpenyong Asuquo
• Other notable political figures and public officials

Their inclusion underscored the political weight of the case and reinforced public perception that the trial extended beyond a simple defamation matter.

For several months, the case remained a subject of intense legal wrangling and media coverage.
Human rights organizations, senior lawyers, journalists, and opposition figures repeatedly raised concerns over the implications of the trial for democracy and free speech in Nigeria.
Some legal analysts argued that criminal defamation laws, though still on the statute books, are increasingly inconsistent with democratic norms and international human rights standards.
Others noted that the case exposed the delicate balance between protecting individual reputations and safeguarding the right of citizens, especially elected representatives, to speak freely on matters of public interest and personal security.
As of the time of filing this report, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation has not issued any official statement explaining the reasons behind the decision to withdraw the case.
The absence of a formal explanation has fueled speculation, with analysts suggesting possible factors such as:

• Insufficient evidence to sustain the prosecution
• Public pressure and sustained criticism
• Legal and constitutional concerns
• A reassessment of the broader implications of the case

Despite the silence from the AGF’s office, the withdrawal itself is widely seen as a major turning point.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, who has consistently maintained her innocence since the case began, is yet to issue an official public reaction to the latest development. Throughout the trial, the senator repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, insisting that her statements were not defamatory but rather a desperate call for attention to serious threats against her life. Political observers expect her to address the matter in the coming days, especially given the widespread public interest and the political implications of the withdrawal.

The discontinuance of the case has reopened discussions about the continued relevance of criminal defamation laws in Nigeria.
Many commentators argue that the episode highlights the urgent need for legal reforms that:

• Decriminalise defamation
• Strengthen protections for free speech
• Ensure that security complaints by public officials are properly investigated
• Prevent the misuse of state power against political opponents

The case has also underscored the importance of judicial independence and prosecutorial discretion in maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Across social media and political circles, reactions to the withdrawal have been swift and divided.
While supporters of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan have welcomed the decision as a victory for justice and free expression, others insist that reputational harm should not go unaddressed.
Nevertheless, many Nigerians agree that the case, regardless of differing opinions, has exposed critical weaknesses in how politically sensitive matters are handled.
Related Post... Criminal Defamation: FG Drags Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to Court Over Live TV Remarks
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Lawyers Demand Senate Obey Court Order on Reinstatement
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Legal Team Cries Foul Over Pending Petitions as FG Files Charges: Calls for Justice, Fairness, and Rule of Law
The Federal Government’s decision to withdraw the criminal defamation case against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan closes a chapter in one of Nigeria’s most closely watched political prosecutions in recent times. Although questions remain unanswered, the development has reinforced ongoing debates about freedom of speech, political accountability, and the appropriate limits of criminal law in a democratic society. As Nigeria continues to navigate complex political and legal challenges, the outcome of this case will likely influence future conversations around governance, justice, and the protection of fundamental rights.

By Primelineinfo