Natasha’s Defamation Trial Suffers Adjournment

The trial of the suspended Kogi Central Senator Natasha Apoti-Uduaghan at the High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory for allegedly defaming the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, again suffered an adjournment.

The senator’s trial could not go on due to objections to the competence of the charge.

Natasha predicated her objections on the alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation AGF by filing charges against her at the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on the same subject matter and same complaints.

When the matter was called, David Kaswe, a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice, informed the court of his readiness to open the case against the defendant.

He claimed to have his first witness, a Superintendent of Police named Abdulhafeez Garba, in court to testify against the senator.

He requested permission from the court to call the witness into the witness box.

The request was opposed by lead counsel for the defendant, Mr Ehighioge West-Idahosa, SAN, on the ground that his client had filed a motion on notice, challenging the competence of the charges and the court’s jurisdiction.

West-Idahosa said that the motion had been served on the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, as required by law, but that the AGF had not responded.

In the drama that ensued, the federal government lawyer who announced his appearance for the AGF Office argued that he ought to have been served personally or informed on the phone about the motion filing and requested that Natasha’s claim be rejected.

However, the trial Judge, Justice Chizoba Orji, found in the case file that the AGF office was served with the motion but had not responded as required by law.

After hearing arguments for and against adjournment, Justice Chizoba Orji held that the proper course was to shift the trial to enable AGF to respond to the motion in the interest of a fair hearing.

The Judge subsequently fixed October 27 for Natasha’s motion to be heard along with the response of the AGF.