An Abuja High Court on Thursday struck out the criminal charges filed by the Federal Government against the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, bringing an end to a legal battle that had drawn widespread national attention.
Court documents revealed that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation entered a Notice of Discontinuance, leading the court to formally discontinue the criminal defamation and related charges earlier brought against the lawmaker.
The case, which sparked intense public debate, arose from remarks allegedly made by Natasha during a televised interview. Its prosecution generated sustained discussions around freedom of expression, political responsibility, and the proper use of prosecutorial authority in a democratic society.
The Notice of Discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, effectively terminated proceedings in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025.
Delivering his ruling on Thursday, Justice C. N. Oji acknowledged the notice and struck out the matter. He noted that the withdrawal highlighted the importance of exercising caution in the deployment of prosecutorial powers.
“The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process,” the judge said.
Counsel representing the Federal Government confirmed the withdrawal 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 stated.
Speaking after the court session, Senator Natasha described the ruling as a clear vindication.
“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,” Natasha said, while expressing gratitude to her legal team and supporters for their unwavering support.
The dismissal of the charges follows months of legal controversy and public discourse, with several civil society and human rights groups previously criticising the case as an effort to suppress free speech and political participation.
