Citizenship News
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has struck out the federal government’s criminal charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Court records confirmed that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation filed a Notice of Discontinuance, prompting the court to formally strike out the criminal defamation and related charges earlier brought against the lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District.
The charges, which generated intense public debate around freedom of expression and political accountability, arose from comments allegedly made by the senator during a televised interview.
The notice of discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, brought proceedings in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025 to an end.
Presiding over the matter, Hon. Justice C. N. Oji acknowledged the notice and accordingly struck out the case.
In his remarks, the judge noted that the development underscored the need for restraint in the exercise of prosecutorial powers.
“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.
Counsel to the Federal Government confirmed the development 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,” he stated. “This decision is taken in the overall interest of justice and public confidence in the legal system.”
Reacting after the court session, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan described the outcome as a vindication of her position.
“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, thanking her legal team and supporters for their steadfast support throughout the proceedings.
The striking out of the charges follows months of legal controversy and sustained public discourse, with several civil society organisations previously condemning the case as an attempt to stifle free speech and political engagement.
