Court Rejects Attorney General’s Request to Issue Bench Warrant on Senator Natasha for Alleged Cybercrime
A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation’s plea to authorize an arrest warrant for Senator Natasha Akpoti, concerning a cybercrime accusation leveled against the female legislator.
Justice G. Umar dismissed the request following an oral motion presented by D. E. Kaswe, Assistant Director in the Department of Public Prosecutions at the OAGF.
In the six-count indictment obtained by Nairametrics, Akpoti stands accused of infringing upon the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, by allegedly making disparaging remarks aimed at tarnishing the reputation of Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
The first count of the charge states: “That on or about the 1st day of April 2025, while addressing an assembly at Ihima Community, Kogi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, you SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN deliberately caused the following communication to be disseminated via a computer system and network, namely:
‘…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…’
“And you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, were aware this contained a threat likely to damage the reputation of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, as President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, punishable under the same section of the Act.”
The federal government, through the AGF, further alleged that on or about the 3rd of April 2025, during a live studio interview program, “Politics Today,” on Channels TV in Abuja, the lawmaker purportedly intentionally disseminated a message via a computer system and network regarding “the discussions that Akpabio had with Yahaya Bello that night, ehm, to eliminate me…”
The AGF’s office claims Akpoti was aware her statements were “false” and allegedly aimed to provoke a breakdown of law and order.
This, the AGF’s office emphasized, was contrary to Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, punishable under the same section of the Act. During the court session, Kaswe stated the proceeding was intended for the arraignment of the defendant, noting that only that morning had his team managed to serve the charge on her attorney, J. J. Usman, SAN. Kaswe contended that the presence of the defendant’s lawyer in court ostensibly indicated that Akpoti was “aware of the case” but chose not to appear. “We seek to apply for the issuance of a bench warrant due to her failure or intentional refusal to present herself before this court,” Kaswe continued.
In response, Usman remarked that he found the application for his client’s arrest, or a bench warrant, “peculiar” before the court. He added that he had communicated with the prosecution, informing him that he was instructed by his client to accept the charge on her behalf.
He highlighted that the prosecution delivered the charge to him that morning at 9:18 a.m. “I did not anticipate him to submit an application for a bench warrant,” Usman said, noting that a related charge has been filed against Akpoti at the FCT High Court.
He implored the court to “disregard” the application for a bench warrant. The judge then inquired of Kaswe whether Senator Akpoti had been personally served with the charge. Kaswe stated that Akpoti had not been served personally, but she had now been served through her lawyer that morning.
“Awareness is distinct from personal service,” the judge responded to Kaswe.
“I will not grant your application for a bench warrant,” the judge concluded.
Kaswe subsequently sought permission to serve the charge by substituted means through the defendant’s lawyer. That application was approved, and the court adjourned the case to June 30 for arraignment.
