SIR: In every democracy, the rule of law remains the fulcrum on which justice, accountability, and civil order revolve. When individuals, regardless of status or influence, level grievous accusations against others, it is only just and proper that such allegations be subjected to judicial scrutiny. The ongoing controversy involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is no exception.

After making grave allegation of sexual harassment against the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, Akpoti-Uduaghan went on to make another claim that both Akpabio and a former governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, were plotting to assassinate her.

These are not mere verbal exchanges. These are serious, reputation-damaging, and socially destabilising accusations. If untrue, they are not just defamatory, they are incendiary. And if true, they warrant full legal redress against the public officers.

Both Akpabio and Bello vehemently denied these allegations. But rather than engage in mudslinging or mob justice, they petitioned the appropriate law enforcement agency – the Nigerian Police Force – which commenced an investigation, in the course of which it invited Akpoti-Uduaghan to present her side, an invitation she failed to honour.

Subsequently, and on the strength of the investigation by the police, the Federal Government preferred a six-count criminal charge against her before the Federal High Court, Abuja. Allegations in the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025 are rooted in cybercrime provisions, revolve around her alleged transmission of false and injurious information via electronic means, calculated to malign, incite, and endanger lives and breach public order.

Among the particulars of the charge are claims that the senator, while addressing a gathering on April 01, 2025 in Ihima, alleged that Akpabio instructed Bello to have her eliminated in Kogi State. Similarly, in a television interview, she allegedly repeated this narrative, suggesting a murderous conspiracy against her life.
 
Is this suppression or due process? 
Some voices, especially in activism and social media communities, have chosen to mischaracterise this development as a clampdown on dissent or an attempt to silence an outspoken lawmaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is about the integrity of the law and the limits of expression in a democratic society.

The defendant will have her day in court, with full constitutional protections, legal representation, and a fair trial. Is that not the essence of justice? The principle of justice espouses that ‘’to every man, his due”.

Why the Courtroom Matters 
What the Nigerian state has done is simply to insist on legal accountability. The courtroom, not Twitter threads or televised interviews, is the proper arena to test the truth of any claim, especially those with such serious ramifications.

Let: no one presume Akpoti-Uduaghan’s guilt. But no one should also presume her innocence without her submitting to due legal process. Let the court weigh the preponderance of evidence. If the charges are frivolous, the court will dismiss them. If proven beyond reasonable doubt, appropriate consequences will follow. No matter whose ox is gored, justice must be served. That is how the rule of law promotes justice for all in an orderly society.

To suggest that Akpoti-Uduaghan is being targeted or silenced by the legal process, is to mock the judiciary and trivialise the core principles of constitutional democracy. Allegations on television and social media, should not go unchallenged in law. The legal doctrine is: he who asserts must prove. Akpoti-Uduaghan should gladly embrace this opportunity to substantiate her claims in court.
Ken Harries is an Abuja-based communication strategist.