Senator Natasha Arraigned, Granted Bail

The senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the National Assembly, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has been arraigned before Justice Mohammed Umar of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

The court, however, granted her bail on self-recognition.

The court acknowledged that she is a senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and a legal practitioner.

Justice Umar concurred with the submission of her counsel, Chief Roland Otaru, SAN, that she has never been a flight risk.

The Kogi senator pleaded not guilty to all six counts of charges relating to making statements via broadcast that are allegedly capable of harming the person of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.

The federal government, represented by the Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Mohammed Abubakar, informed the court that the prosecution was not opposed to the bail application and did not file a counter affidavit.

He urged the court to grant the defendant bail under terms that would ensure her attendance at trial.

Meanwhile, the court has set September 22 for trial. The Senate President had lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police regarding damage to his reputation caused by Natasha, who accused him of planning to have her eliminated in Kogi State.

Subsequently, based on the police investigation, Senator Natasha was charged with cybercrime against Akpabio and Yahaya Bello.

The federal government, through the Attorney General’s Office, has preferred a six-count criminal charge against her before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The allegations in the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, are rooted in cybercrime provisions and revolve around her alleged transmission of false and injurious information via electronic means, purportedly calculated to malign, incite, and endanger lives, as well as breach public order.

Among the particulars of the charge are claims that Natasha, while addressing a gathering on April 4, 2025, in Ihima, alleged that Senator Akpabio instructed Bello to have her eliminated in Kogi State.

Similarly, in a television interview, she allegedly repeated this narrative, suggesting a murderous conspiracy against her by Akpabio and Yahaya Bello.

Following her plea of not guilty, the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mr Mohammed Abubakar, requested a date from Justice Umar to commence the trial.

Part of the charges states: “That on or about the 1st day of April 2025, while addressing a crowd of people at Ihima Community, Kogi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, you—SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN—intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit: ‘…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if the people that killed me here…’ And you, SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio GCON as the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24 (2) (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same Act.”

Count Two states: “That on or about the 1st day of April 2025, while addressing a crowd of people at Ihima Community, Kogi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, you—SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN—intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit: ‘…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if the people that killed me here…’ And you, SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Yahaya Adoza Bello, a former Governor of Kogi State. You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24 (2) (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same section of the Act.