Cybercrime Cost: Courtroom adjourns Senator Natasha Akpoti’s objection listening to to November 24

The Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja has mounted November 24, 2025, for the listening to of a preliminary objection raised by Senator Natasha Akpoti’s authorized staff following a cybercrime cost instituted in opposition to her by the Federal Authorities.

Nairametrics gathered that the listening to date was rescheduled by Justice Umar Mohammed’s courtroom on Tuesday after proceedings have been stalled on Monday.

The Federal Excessive Courtroom couldn’t sit on Monday as a result of #FreeNnamdiKanu protest, which grounded actions within the nation’s capital metropolis centre.

Authorized Dispute 

Within the six-count cost beforehand reported by Nairametrics, Akpoti was accused of violating the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, and so forth.) (Modification) Act, 2024, when she allegedly made feedback concentrating on the repute of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.

Rely 1 of the cost reads: 

“That on or concerning the 1st day of April 2025, whereas addressing a crowd at Ihima Neighborhood, Kogi State, throughout the jurisdiction of this Honourable Courtroom, you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, deliberately brought on the next communication to be transmitted by way of a pc system and community, to wit: 

‘…and Akpabio informed Yahaya Bello, I’m saying and standing by what I’ve mentioned. He informed him that he ought to be sure that killing me doesn’t occur in Abuja; it needs to be performed right here, so it would appear as if it’s the folks that killed me right here…’ 

“And also you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, knew this contained a risk that might hurt the repute of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, because the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 

“You thereby dedicated an offence opposite to Part 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, and so forth.) (Modification) Act, 2024, and punishable underneath the identical part of the Act.” 

The Workplace of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had careworn that the alleged act was opposite to Part 24(1)(b) of the identical legislation and punishable underneath the identical provision.

Nonetheless, Akpoti had pleaded not responsible to the cost, paving the way in which for trial.

Backstory 

On the final proceedings, Justice Umar had adjourned the case on the occasion of the preliminary objection, holding that the Workplace of the Attorney General of the Federation should formally reply to the objection earlier than the trial might begin.

Akpoti’s counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, maintained that it could be improper for the prosecution to open its case earlier than the objection was decided.

West-Idahosa defined that the objection challenged the courtroom’s jurisdiction, stressing that it was not concerning the nature of the cost however about an alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AGF.

However, D.E. Kaswe, an Assistant Director within the Division of Public Prosecutions on the OAGF, argued that the preliminary objection shouldn’t be allowed to stall the proceedings.

However Justice Umar dominated that the prosecution should first file a proper (not oral) response, emphasizing that the courtroom should decide the objection earlier than taking any additional steps within the matter, according to related legal guidelines.