Justice Chizoba Oji of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Maitama, Abuja, on Monday, fixed December 1 for hearing of the preliminary objection raised by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, in her trial for allegedly defaming Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and former governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State.

Akpoti-Uduaghan was arraigned on June 19 before the court on a three-count charge, bordering on harmful imputation by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.

In the charge, marked FCT/HC/ CR/297/25,  Akpoti-Uduaghan was accused of making a harmful imputation which she knew would harm the reputation of the Senate President, Senator Akpabio, by claiming he plotted, with former governor Bello, to kill her.

She is further accused of making a similar, harmful imputation, knowing it would harm the reputation of ex-governor Bello.

The prosecution also accused the embattled senator of making another imputation, which she knew would harm the reputation of Akpabio by associating him with the death of one Miss Imoren Iniobong.

She, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge against her.

At the resumed hearing of the case on Monday, the prosecuting counsel, David Kaswe, informed the court that although the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the defendant’s preliminary objection, the prosecution had not been able to serve its response to the objection despite having filed it with the court.

Kaswe told the court that the address where the prosecution’s counter was served did not belong to any of the counsel for the senator and, as such, requested a short adjournment to allow the prosecution to properly serve the defendant with its response to her preliminary objection.

The prosecutor said, “It will not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter goes on as the defence team has indicated that they will respond to our counter.

“In the circumstances, we are asking for a short adjournment to enable us (prosecution) to effect proper service on the defence.”

Responding to this, the lead counsel for Natasha, Ehighioge West-Idahosa SAN, confirmed to the court that the prosecution’s response to his client’s preliminary objection was not served on any of her defence team, adding that they had not seen the response.

“The prosecution’s counter was not served on any of the defendant’s lawyers. As defendant, we have not been served. We intend to re-file when we are properly served, as we have additional evidence to file,” the senior advocate told the court.

He, however, appealed to the court for a long adjournment, as members of the defence team plan to attend this year’s International Bar Association meeting in Canada.

After listening to parties, Justice Oji adjourned hearing of the preliminary objection to December 1.

At the last sitting on September in the case on September 23, West-Idahosa had told the court that the defendant had filed a notice of preliminary objection before the court on the ground that there was abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

According to the senior advocate, the preliminary objection was not a challenge of the elements of the charge but a challenge to the validity of the charge, asserting that, “This is threshold of jurisdictional matter.”

He then informed the court that the defence had, on September 18, served the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation with the preliminary objection and the prosecution had yet to respond to it.