In a counter-affidavit submitted by the AGF’s office, the prosecution urged the court to dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection. The prosecution stated, “The three counts were brought against the defendant in accordance with the Penal Code Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and in the legitimate exercise of the prosecutorial powers of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and in the interest of justice.
“The actions and conduct of the defendant/applicant violated the Penal Code Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The criminal charge against the defendant resulted from a thorough and conclusive investigation of the case, which included all petitions and parties involved, conducted by the Nigeria Police Force.
All petitions submitted by the defendant were thoroughly examined, leading to charges being filed at the FCT High Court against her colleague, a senator.
“The Office of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation initiated the criminal charge against the defendant after careful consideration of public interest, the pursuit of justice, and the necessity to prevent the misuse of legal processes.
“The charge against the defendant aligns with existing laws and does not represent an abuse of the legal or prosecutorial authority of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation,” stated the prosecution.
In the charge designated FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan was accused of making damaging allegations that she purportedly knew would harm Akpabio’s reputation by asserting that he conspired with former governor Bello to murder her.
She was additionally accused of making similar allegations against Bello and another against Akpabio, allegedly associating him with the death of Miss Iniobong Umoren.
During the last session on September 23, defence counsel, Ehighioge West-Idahosa (SAN), informed the court that the defendant had submitted a notice of preliminary objection, contending that the Office of the Attorney-General had misused its prosecutorial powers.
He stated that the objection did not dispute the essence of the charges but questioned their legitimacy, referring to it as a “threshold jurisdictional matter.”
He further noted that the preliminary objection had been delivered to the AGF’s office on September 18, yet no reply had been received.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Kaswe clarified to the court that the address where the prosecution’s counter-affidavit was served did not belong to any member of the defence counsel, and he requested a brief adjournment to facilitate proper service.
“It would be unjust for the prosecution to insist on proceeding with the matter when the defence team has expressed its intention to respond to our counter,” Kaswe remarked. “We are, therefore, requesting a brief adjournment to allow us to effect proper service.
In response, West-Idahosa affirmed that the defence had not received the prosecution’s reply, indicating that none of the defendant’s attorneys had been served.
“The prosecution’s counter was not delivered to any of the defence lawyers. We plan to respond once we are duly served, as we have further evidence to submit,” the senior advocate remarked.
He also requested the court to allow for a lengthy adjournment, clarifying that members of the defence team intended to participate in this year’s International Bar Association Conference in Canada.
After considering both sides, Justice Oji postponed the hearing of the preliminary objection to December 1.
