THE TRIAL OF NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN

The court is the proper place to test the truth of any claim, argues KEN HARRIES 

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 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.

While her allegation of sexual harassment against the President of the Nigerian Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio is still in the air, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan made another claim – that both Senator 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 accusations. And if true, they warrant full legal redress.

Both Senator Akpabio and Yahaya Bello vehemently denied these allegations. But rather than engage in mudslinging, they acted in the most democratic and civilised manner possible. They petitioned the appropriate law enforcement agency – the Nigerian Police Force – which commenced an investigation, in the course of which it invited Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to present her side.

 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 alleged transmission of false and injurious information via electronic means, calculated to endanger lives and breach public order.

Among the particulars of the charge are claims that the senator, while addressing a gathering on April 1, 2025 in Ihima, alleged that Senator Akpabio instructed Bello to have her eliminated in Kogi State. Similarly, in a television interview, she allegedly repeated this narrative.

Some voices, especially in activism and social media communities, have chosen to characterize this development as a clampdown on dissent or an attempt to silence an outspoken lawmaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about free speech. This is about the integrity of the law and the limits of expression in a democratic society.

To accuse individuals, especially public office holders, of conspiracy to commit murder, and then refuse to defend those claims is not activism. It is a subversion of justice and a manipulation of public sentiment.

One cannot hide behind the veil of freedom of speech to incite or defame.

The defendant will have her day in court, as she did few days a ago, 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”.

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 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 and serve as a deterrent. That is how the rule of law promotes justice for all in an orderly society.

 Nigeria must not become a nation where allegations, theatrically rendered on television and social media, are allowed to go unchallenged in law. The legal doctrine is clear: he who asserts must prove. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan should gladly embrace this opportunity to the fullest to substantiate her claims. That is the responsible, lawful, and honourable path forward.

Let the courts decide.

Harries Esq is an Abuja-based Communication Strategist