ABUJA (CONVERSEER) – A federal high court in Abuja has refused an application by the federal government to issue a warrant of arrest against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi Central.
In a suit marked CR/297/25 and filed before a federal capital territory (FCT) high court on May 16, the federal government accused Akpoti-Uduaghan of “making imputation knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of a person”.
The suit was filed following petitions to the inspector-general of police by Godswill Akpabio, senate president; and Yahaya Bello, the former Kogi state governor.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was, however, absent in court on Monday.
David Kasue, prosecution counsel, informed the court that the charge had been duly served on the senator’s legal representative, indicating she was fully aware of the proceedings.
Kasue, therefore, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for her arrest, citing her failure to appear despite having prior knowledge of the case.
“It was this morning that we were able to serve the defendant through her counsel, but the defendant is not in court,” he said.
“So, it means the defendant is aware of this matter but decided not to appear in court. In the light of this, I apply that a bench warrant be issued against her for failure to attend court to take her plea in this criminal charge.”
Responding, Jacob Usman, counsel to Akpoti-Uduaghan, said he found the application of the prosecution “strange”.
Usman told the court that when he got wind of the pendency of the suit, he called the prosecutor to let him know that his client had asked him to receive the charge on her behalf.
“I was served the charge at 9:15 this morning here in court, so how will the defendant know that the matter is coming up when she has not seen the charge?” Usman asked.
“I find the application strange and it should be dishonoured, if the defendant has not been served, she cannot be in court.”
Intervening, Musa Umar, the trial judge, asked the prosecution whether the charge had been served on the defendant. The prosecutor admitted it had not been served.
Umar, in his ruling, held that it would be inappropriate to issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest without proper service of the charge.
Consequently, he denied the prosecution’s application for a bench warrant, but granted an alternative request made belatedly by the prosecution for substituted service through the defendant’s counsel.
The matter was adjourned to June 30 for arraignment.