Daniel Otera
On 19 June 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja will begin hearing the first cybercrime trial involving a sitting female senator in Nigeria.
The case, brought against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Federal Government, marks a historic legal confrontation that could redefine the limits of political speech, reshape digital defamation laws, and test the interpretation of Nigeria’s amended Cybercrimes Act.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing six counts under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, as amended in 2024. The charges arise from allegations that she made false and malicious claims during public events and a television appearance in April 2025, in which she accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello of plotting to assassinate her during the last Kogi governorship election campaign.
According to the charge sheet, the controversial statements were made at a political gathering in Ihima, Kogi State, on 1 April 2025, and during a live interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today on 3 April. In one instance, she was quoted as saying: “Akpabio told Yahaya Bello that he should make sure that killing me will be done in Kogi so it would appear like the people did it.”
Prosecutors contend that the remarks were “false, injurious, and deliberately calculated to incite public disorder,” thus violating Sections 24(2)(c) and 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act.
The charges were filed by the Nigerian Police on 16 May 2025, accompanied by a long list of witnesses that includes Senate President Akpabio, former governor Bello, law enforcement officials, and several members of the National Assembly. The case is scheduled to be heard before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The legal clash comes in the wake of escalating tensions in the National Assembly. In March 2025, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended from the Senate for six months, following weeks of controversy over her December 2023 interview on Arise News, during which she accused Senate President Akpabio of sexual harassment.
In the months that followed, she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings over what parliamentary sources described as “unparliamentary conduct.” Among the allegations were breaches of legislative decorum and making public accusations deemed damaging to the institution’s reputation.
Despite a Federal High Court injunction restraining the Senate from taking punitive action pending the resolution of her suit, the chamber went ahead with the suspension. On 6 March, Senate President Akpabio announced her suspension during plenary, effectively denying her access to her office, entitlements, security, and legislative responsibilities.
The move sparked swift backlash from civic groups and opposition lawmakers, who decried it as a politically motivated attempt to silence a vocal female lawmaker. “This is not just about Natasha,” a coalition of women’s rights organisations said in a press statement. “It is a dangerous message to every Nigerian woman who dares to speak truth to power in male-dominated institutions.”
Legal experts and political commentators criticised the Senate’s decision as unconstitutional and procedurally unfair. However, the Senate leadership defended its action, describing it as consistent with its standing rules and necessary for preserving institutional order.
The upcoming trial on 19 June is not only politically significant but could also set legal precedents regarding freedom of expression in Nigeria’s digital space. The charges are rooted in Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, which was amended in 2024 to address rising concerns over harmful content online. The revision was intended to narrow the law’s scope to clearly defined offences such as knowingly false messages intended to incite violence, threaten life, or disrupt public order. However, legal experts and rights organisations maintain that the provision remains problematic.
According to a Freedom on the Net report, the amended section now focuses specifically on communications that are “pornographic or knowingly false,” particularly where such messages are shared “for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order” or threatening life and security]. Nonetheless, critics argue that the language of Section 24 is still vague and prone to broad interpretation.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has consistently criticised the provision, describing it as a tool routinely used by authorities to “arbitrarily arrest, detain, and prosecute social media users, activists, and journalists”.
In 2024, SERAP filed a suit before the ECOWAS Court challenging Section 24, arguing that the law “criminalises legitimate expression” and enables prosecutorial abuse against political dissent.
Prior to the 2024 revision, the same provision had already come under scrutiny for targeting online commentators and media professionals. With its expanded reach and harsher penalties, concerns are mounting that the law’s enforcement is less about protecting the public and more about controlling the narrative.
Rights advocates also flag the absence of clear boundaries between civil defamation and criminal cyber-offences, warning of a growing risk of prosecutorial overreach.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team has signalled that they view the charges as politically motivated, particularly given her highly publicised disputes with powerful political figures. The broader enforcement pattern of the Cybercrimes Act against government critics adds further weight to these concerns, even as the prosecution maintains that the case is grounded in legal merit alone.
At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the senator’s statements qualify as protected political speech or cross into the realm of criminal falsehood. To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that her statements were knowingly false and intended to cause public disorder or harm.
Evidence submitted includes voice recordings, video clips from the events in question, transcribed reports, and formal petitions.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, elected in 2023 under the banner of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), represents Kogi Central. Her emergence followed a prolonged legal battle in which the tribunal and the Court of Appeal overturned the initial declaration of her APC rival, Abubakar Ohere. That judicial win was hailed as a significant boost for women’s representation and democratic justice in Kogi State.
Since taking office, her tenure has been marked by confrontations with political rivals at both state and federal levels. In Kogi, she accused former Governor Bello’s administration of diverting public funds and neglecting infrastructure in her constituency. At one point, she alleged that her campaign was sabotaged by the blocking of access roads and that she was labelled a “security threat.”
At the federal level, her relationship with Senate leadership has remained tense. In early 2025, she resisted a sudden reassignment of her Senate seat, describing it as an act of intimidation. That episode was soon followed by her public allegation of sexual harassment against Akpabio, leading to a closed-door disciplinary hearing and her eventual suspension.
The cybercrime charges now represent a critical juncture. Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, the government’s legal anchor in this case, has long attracted criticism for its elasticity and potential to stifle free speech.
If convicted, the senator’s case could set a precedent that encourages further prosecutions. Conversely, an acquittal could reignite calls for legislative reform and reinforce the judiciary’s role in protecting dissent.
