Federal Government Slams Fresh Cybercrime Charge Against Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
The Federal Government of Nigeria has instituted fresh criminal charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the embattled representative of Kogi Central Senatorial District. The new legal action, which has triggered widespread debate within Nigeria’s legal, political, and civic spaces, underscores the increasing tensions between the federal authorities and outspoken members of the opposition political class.
The latest charge, filed on May 22, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, is formally marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/25. Coming barely weeks after a previous criminal defamation suit lodged against the Senator at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), this new case pivots on Nigeria’s evolving cybercrime legislation. Specifically, it invokes Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition) Act, 2024 (as amended), alleging that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan willfully published statements online deemed injurious to the reputation of two prominent political figures—Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello.
The Cybercrime Act’s relevant provisions criminalize the intentional dissemination of false information electronically with the intent to intimidate, insult, or defame public officials. According to the Federal Government’s position, the Senator’s alleged comments fall within this definition, portraying both Akpabio and Bello in scandalous lights that could allegedly damage their public images.
The controversial nature of these charges is compounded by the fact that they are being pursued simultaneously in different courts under distinct legal frameworks. While the Federal High Court case leans on the cybercrime statute, the earlier charge—filed as CR/297/25 at the FCT High Court—is premised on Section 392 of the Penal Code, addressing criminal defamation.
Legal analysts and senior advocates have described this dual approach as classic forum shopping, a legal strategy often condemned in jurisprudential ethics. By simultaneously pursuing similar charges under different legal frameworks in separate courts, prosecutors are perceived to be angling for a favorable verdict somewhere along the judicial pathway.
“It smacks of desperation,” noted one senior Abuja-based lawyer, who requested anonymity. “It’s an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. If you truly believe in the merit of your case, why not pursue it in one competent jurisdiction?”
Though the full details of the exact statements cited in the Federal High Court charge have yet to be made public by the prosecution, preliminary filings suggest that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had made social media posts alleging corruption and misconduct involving both Akpabio and Bello. Specifically, she is accused of insinuating that Yahaya Bello manipulated federal allocations and influenced judicial processes in the aftermath of his controversial tenure as Kogi State Governor.
In relation to Akpabio, her comments reportedly criticized what she described as complicity in legislative corruption, accusing the Senate President of shielding embattled political allies from scrutiny within the Senate leadership structure. Sources indicate that the posts were shared via the Senator’s verified social media accounts between April and early May 2025.
These posts, the government contends, contravene the Cybercrime Act’s prohibitions against the dissemination of false, harmful, or injurious content via electronic means.
YOU MAY READ
Appeal Court Strikes Out Akpabio’s Motions Against Senator Natasha, Orders N100,000 Costs
From her first public reaction to the earlier charge to her latest responses, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has remained defiant. Speaking to journalists outside the FCT High Court last week after securing bail in the earlier criminal defamation suit, she described the charges as nothing more than political persecution aimed at silencing her fierce opposition to entrenched interests.
“This is a desperate attempt to gag the voices of women, youth, and progressive leadership emerging from the North Central and across Nigeria,” the Senator said. “We will not cower before the machinery of intimidation.”
In subsequent statements posted on her official social media accounts, Natasha characterized the charges as part of a broader conspiracy by the corrupt political establishment to sideline her ahead of the 2027 general elections. Her growing popularity in Kogi State and increasingly national profile, particularly as a vocal critic of the APC’s dominance in the Senate, has made her a lightning rod for controversy.
The Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan prosecution cannot be examined in isolation. Observers of Nigeria’s political landscape note that her case speaks to broader themes of gender, regional representation, and opposition politics in a country where entrenched political dynasties often close ranks to insulate themselves from criticism.
Natasha, a lawyer and social entrepreneur by training, has consistently positioned herself as a reformist voice challenging both the patriarchal undercurrents of Nigeria’s political elite and the dominance of long-standing party structures, especially in Kogi politics. Her dramatic senatorial victory in Kogi Central, achieved in a fiercely contested election marred by irregularities and violent suppression of opposition voters, positioned her as one of the few female senators willing to take on powerful political interests.
Now, with these prosecutions, critics argue that the political establishment is moving to cut her influence short before she can mount a credible challenge for higher office, perhaps even the governorship of Kogi State or significant leadership roles within the Senate.
One of the central controversies surrounding this case is the Cybercrime (Prohibition) Act, 2024 (as amended), itself. While the legislation was initially conceived as a necessary framework to combat online fraud, cyberterrorism, and digital blackmail—problems endemic in Nigeria’s digital economy—critics argue that successive administrations have used its more ambiguous provisions as cudgels against political dissent.
Section 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c), in particular, have become lightning rods for criticism. They criminalize the deliberate sending of “offensive, annoying, or injurious messages via computer systems or networks,” but legal scholars argue that their definitions are vague and open to broad interpretation by prosecutors.
A Lagos-based tech law advocate, Amaka Egwuatu, explains: “What constitutes ‘offensive’ or ‘injurious’ is entirely subjective. This is where the risk of abuse arises. It’s a law crying out for clearer judicial guidelines—or better yet, legislative amendment to prevent its misuse.”
This is not the first time Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act has been used against opposition figures. Several journalists, activists, and civil society leaders have previously faced prosecution under the Act for making allegedly defamatory social media posts, sparking accusations of state overreach and suppression of free expression.
Perhaps the most damaging legal implication of the Federal Government’s approach in Natasha’s case is the apparent use of forum shopping. By filing cases simultaneously in both the FCT High Court and the Federal High Court—under completely different laws—prosecutors risk undermining the integrity of judicial processes and sending a chilling message about the rule of law in Nigeria.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, weighed in during an interview on June 23, describing the development as a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
“It is inappropriate, unethical, and judicially reprehensible to pursue the same underlying offense in two different courts with two different charges,” Falana argued. “Our constitution envisages that no citizen should suffer double jeopardy. Even at the stage of trial, this approach violates that fundamental legal principle.”
Several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International Nigeria, SERAP, and CISLAC, have issued statements condemning the move as indicative of creeping authoritarianism in the country.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s next major legal hurdle will be her arraignment before the Federal High Court on June 30, 2025. The date has become a flashpoint for various civil society groups, opposition parties, and legal observers who have vowed to monitor proceedings closely for signs of judicial manipulation or executive interference.
For now, Natasha remains free on bail secured on June 19, 2025, by the FCT High Court. Her legal team, led by renowned constitutional lawyer Inibehe Effiong, has hinted that they will challenge both the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the constitutionality of the cybercrime provisions under which she is being charged.
In a statement issued by Effiong shortly after the new charge was announced, he said: “This is a deliberate strategy to wear Senator Natasha down with spurious charges. But we are ready. We will confront this legal tyranny head-on.”
As the legal drama unfolds, the political implications loom large. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been increasingly mentioned as a potential gubernatorial candidate for Kogi State in the 2027 elections, especially after her landmark senatorial victory broke traditional political barriers in the state. With her popularity swelling among youth, women, and reform-minded voters across the North Central geopolitical zone, these prosecutions may be interpreted by political strategists as preemptive strikes to weaken her candidacy before it gains national momentum.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), under whose platform Natasha was elected to the Senate, has already issued statements backing her unequivocally, framing the charges as a politically motivated attempt to undermine emerging opposition leadership in the region.
Meanwhile, ruling party loyalists in the All Progressives Congress (APC) have dismissed these claims, asserting that the charges have nothing to do with Natasha’s politics but everything to do with accountability for reckless and defamatory conduct unbecoming of a sitting Senator.
Beyond Nigeria’s borders, the Natasha prosecution is beginning to attract international attention. Human Rights Watch, the US Mission to Nigeria, and the European Union Delegation have issued muted but pointed statements emphasizing the importance of free expression, judicial independence, and respect for opposition voices in democratic societies.
One diplomat, speaking anonymously to international media, stated: “What happens in this case will set a precedent not only for Nigeria but for how emerging democracies handle the intersection of online speech and political accountability.”
Ultimately, the courts will decide the merits of the case, but Nigeria’s judiciary faces a profound test: Can it rise above the politics of persecution to deliver impartial justice, or will it be seen as complicit in enabling the silencing of critical voices through questionable legal tactics?
As June 30 approaches, Nigeria will watch closely—not just because of the fate of one Senator, but because of what this legal showdown reveals about the trajectory of democracy, free speech, and rule of law in Africa’s largest democracy.
Whatever the outcome, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s battle has already ignited a national conversation about the rights of public officials to criticize power, the dangers of prosecutorial overreach, and the enduring struggle for accountability in Nigerian governance.