An Abuja High Court on Thursday dismissed the Federal Government’s charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the lawmaker representing Kogi Central, effectively ending a high-profile court struggle that ignited national debate.
Court records show that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation submitted a Notice of Discontinuance, causing the court to formally dismiss the senator’s previous criminal defamation and related accusations.
The case, which drew widespread public attention, arose from remarks reportedly made by Akpoti-Uduaghan during a television appearance.
The prosecution of the case had sparked heated debate over free expression, political accountability, and the limits of prosecutorial powers in a democratic society.
The Notice of Discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, brought the proceedings in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025 to a conclusion.
Justice C. N. Oji, who presided over the hearing on Thursday, recognized the notice and dismissed the case.
In his remarks, the judge stated that the development highlighted the importance of exercising control in prosecution authorities.
“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 withdrawal of the charges 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. This decision is taken in the overall interest of justice and public confidence in the legal system,” he said.
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, while thanking her legal team and supporters for their steadfast backing throughout the proceedings.
The charges were dropped after months of legal debate and public outrage, with various civil society organizations and rights groups previously criticizing the case as an attempt to suppress free speech and political activity.
