FG files new cybercrime charge against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Following its unsuccessful attempt to detain Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on June 19, 2025, the Federal Government has intensified its legal pursuit by initiating a new case against her at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The fresh charge, numbered FHC/ABJ/CR/195/25, was filed on May 22, 2025—just weeks after a similar charge (CR/297/25) was brought against her before the FCT High Court.

Both charges stem from accusations that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan made public remarks deemed injurious to the reputations of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.

While the earlier FCT High Court case is based on Section 392 of the Penal Code, alleging criminal defamation, the new charge at the Federal High Court cites Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition) Act, 2024 (as amended), focusing on online statements allegedly harmful to public figures.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has consistently denied the accusations. Notably, both cases rely on the same statements and facts, prompting legal experts to raise concerns over what they describe as “forum shopping”—a tactic where prosecutors file identical cases in different courts hoping for a favourable verdict.

Critics argue that this strategy amounts to an abuse of judicial processes and appears to be a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the senator through multiple prosecutions. Many see this legal approach as punitive and potentially politically motivated, especially since the core allegations involve expression of opinion—protected under free speech provisions.

The Federal High Court has scheduled her arraignment for June 30, 2025, following her bail earlier granted by the FCT High Court on June 19.

Legal observers warn that duplicating charges for the same alleged offence not only burdens the judiciary but could also constitute harassment.

They point out that many parts of Nigeria—such as Lagos, Delta, Edo, and Ekiti States—have already decriminalized defamation, treating it as a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

The continued push for criminal sanctions over speech is drawing criticism from rights advocates, who caution that such actions could chill dissent, erode democratic norms, and set a troubling precedent for suppressing criticism of public officials.