A Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, yesterday, slated November 24, to hear the six-count cybercrime charge the Federal Government preferred against the Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Trial Justice Mohammed Umar gave fresh date after the case was stalled by the protest that disrupted court activities on Monday.
FG, in the charge, alleged that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan made false assassination claim that was in violation of the cybercrime law.
The defendant was said to have made an allegation that some politicians opposed to her were plotting to assassinate her.
According to FG, the lawmaker committed the alleged crime when she addressed her supporters in Kogi State and on April 3, during a live broadcast on Channels Television’s Politics Today.
However, the lawmaker, who was arraigned before the court on June 30, pleaded her innocence to the charge, even as she was granted bail on self-recognition.
More so, the defendant, through her team of lawyer led by Mr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, filed a preliminary objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case.
The objection centred on alleged abuse of the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice.
Besides, the defence counsel complained that the prosecution failed to serve him with copies of full statements of the proposed witnesses.
He contended that section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made it compulsory that the defendant must be served with the proof of evidence to enable her to effectively prepare her defence to the charge.
On his part, FG’s lawyer, Mr. David Kaswe, told the court that his witnesses were ready to appear before it to testify in the matter.
The prosecution counsel argued that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s objection was not sufficient to stall the scheduled commencement of the trial.
He, therefore, urged the court to allow FG to open its case, insisting the court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the cybercrime charge.
“We have exercised our prosecutorial powers according to both the Constitution and the Cybercrime law. The AGF has the power to prefer charge against anyone,” Kaswe added.
