Natasha Blasts FG Over Selective Justice

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her legal team, has accused the federal government of selective justice.

In mid May, the federal government instituted a suit against Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi central, over alleged defamatory remarks made on live television.

The suit marked CR/297/25 and filed before a federal capital territory high court on May 16, 2025, has Akpoti-Uduaghan as the sole defendant.

The government accused the senator of “making imputation, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of a person”, citing section 391 of the Penal Code, cap 89, Laws of the Federation, 1990.

The offence is punishable under section 392 of the same law.

In a statement signed by Uju Nwoduwu, her counsel, the team said Akpoti-Uduaghan had submitted twelve petitions between March and May 2025, which “remain unattended”.

The petitions, according to the legal team, cover serious allegations such as cyberstalking, threats to life, defamation, and an assassination plot.

“These petitions have neither been acknowledged nor acted upon by the Nigeria Police Force or any relevant security agency,” the statement reads.

The team expressed concern that while Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaints are “gathering dust”, counter-allegations from those she petitioned — including Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Yahaya Bello, former governor of Kogi — have been processed swiftly.

“This selective response raises deep concerns about biased enforcement of justice,” the statement reads.

The team added that some of the petitions detail “the abduction and attempted assassination of a protocol officer” and other threats allegedly linked to high-profile individuals.

The statement said Akpoti-Uduaghan, who is currently out of the country for personal engagements, has received official communication regarding the charges.

“She remains fully committed to due process,” the statement reads.

The team also appreciated public condemnation of what it called “an extremely curious criminal charge” and expressed hope that “injustices against her shall not be sustained”.

The lawyers concluded with a renewed demand for impartial investigation into all pending petitions and urged authorities to apply the law equally.