The Federal Government has formally withdrawn the criminal defamation charges instituted against the Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, bringing to an end a months-long legal dispute that heightened political tension within the 10th Senate and sparked nationwide debate over free speech, accountability, and the use of state power.
The withdrawal was effected through the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, which filed a notice of discontinuance dated December 12, 2025, at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja. The move effectively terminated the prosecution that had been pending against the senator since mid-2025.
During proceedings on Thursday, Justice Chizoba Orji struck out the charge and formally discharged Akpoti-Uduaghan. The court further ordered the immediate release of her international travel documents, which had been deposited as part of her bail conditions, as well as the title deeds submitted by her sureties.
The development marked a significant turning point in a case that began in July 2025 following public allegations made by Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio during plenary sessions of the Senate. Those remarks, which quickly attracted national attention, triggered intense public discourse on the boundaries of legislative privilege, the limits of criminal defamation, and the protection of whistleblowers within democratic institutions.
Reacting to the court’s decision, the Kogi Central senator expressed visible relief and gratitude, describing the outcome as a major milestone in her legal struggle. Speaking shortly after the ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the dismissal of the case had lifted a heavy burden from her shoulders.
“I’m actually very honoured and overwhelmed with gratitude that we had our first case officially dismissed in the court, which is the High Court of the FCT,” she said. “We’ll now be heading to the Federal High Court, where we hope that the second federal government suit against me will also be officially dismissed.”
She added that the ruling had reinvigorated her, despite the physical and emotional strain of the prolonged legal battle. “I’m very grateful and excited. Even though I wasn’t feeling too well, I suddenly have this surge of energy. Thank you all so much,” she said.
Counsel to the senator also welcomed the withdrawal, describing it as a victory for justice and a vindication of his client’s position. He noted that the case had placed Akpoti-Uduaghan under immense emotional and legal pressure, particularly given her status as a serving lawmaker.
“It’s been an exciting challenge, and we are happy that the government has found that there is probably no use pursuing this matter,” the lawyer said. “We are glad that justice has been done. Our client was a victim. She raised an alarm and ended up being arraigned in court. It was traumatic.”
According to him, the senator had initially sought protection after making her allegations but instead found herself facing criminal prosecution. “Somebody who wanted protection was, at the end of the day, standing trial,” he said. “But I’m happy there has been a progressive review of the case.”
The lawyer further credited President Bola Tinubu for what he described as a leadership climate that allowed the matter to be reassessed objectively. He suggested that the withdrawal of the charges reflected a willingness within the administration to uphold justice and prevent the misuse of public institutions.
“I have to commend Mr President. It is instructive to note that without his leadership, the justice we are celebrating today may not have been achieved,” he said.
He also clarified that the case withdrawn by the Attorney General was separate from any private civil actions that might still be pursued by individuals. Emphasising the public nature of the prosecution, he stressed that the criminal defamation suit was initiated directly by the Federal Government.
“This was an action initiated by the government of Nigeria,” he said. “We had raised a preliminary objection, arguing that public funds should not be used to defend the reputation of an individual, no matter what office he holds.”
According to the defence team, that argument was supported by extensive legal authorities and documentation submitted to the court, which may have influenced the government’s decision to discontinue the prosecution.
“We believe that the government took another look at the matter, and today, in my view, natural justice has prevailed,” the lawyer added.
The defamation case had become one of the most closely watched legal controversies of the year, drawing reactions from civil society groups, legal practitioners, and political observers. Many had expressed concern that the use of criminal defamation laws against a serving senator could have a chilling effect on free expression and legislative oversight.
Critics of the prosecution argued that disagreements and allegations raised within the legislature should be addressed through institutional mechanisms or civil remedies rather than criminal sanctions, especially when public funds are involved. Supporters of Akpoti-Uduaghan maintained that the case symbolised a broader attempt to suppress dissent and discourage lawmakers from speaking out on sensitive issues.
With the withdrawal of the suit, attention is now expected to shift to broader conversations about the relevance of criminal defamation laws in Nigeria’s democracy, as well as the need to strengthen protections for whistleblowers and legislators acting in the public interest.
For Akpoti-Uduaghan, the court’s decision represents not only personal relief but also a moment she believes reinforces the principle that elected representatives should not be punished for raising concerns. As she prepares to face the remaining federal case, her supporters view the latest development as a sign that the tide may be turning in her favour.
The discontinuance of the defamation suit effectively closes a chapter that had fuelled intense political and legal debate, while reopening critical questions about accountability, freedom of speech, and the appropriate limits of state power within Nigeria’s democratic system.
