An Abuja High Court on Thursday struck out the criminal charges filed by the Federal Government against the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The decision followed a Notice of Discontinuance filed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, bringing the high-profile case to an end.
Court records showed that the charges, which bordered on criminal defamation and related offences, were withdrawn by the prosecution. The case arose from comments allegedly made by Akpoti-Uduaghan during a televised interview.
The legal battle had attracted widespread public attention and debate, especially around freedom of expression, political accountability and the use of prosecutorial powers in a democracy.
The Notice of Discontinuance, dated December 12, 2025, terminated proceedings in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025.
While delivering his ruling, Justice C. N. Oji acknowledged the notice and formally struck out the case.
The judge said the development highlighted the need for caution in the exercise of prosecutorial authority.
“The court hopes that this decision will pave the way for restraint, healing, and respect for the rule of law in our democratic process,” Justice Oji said.
Counsel to the Federal Government confirmed the withdrawal of the charges in open court.
“On behalf of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, we have filed a notice of discontinuance in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. This decision is taken in the overall interest of justice and public confidence in the legal system,” the lawyer stated.
Speaking after the court session, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan described the ruling as a clear vindication of her stance.
“Today’s outcome affirms my belief in the rule of law. I remain committed to serving my constituents and defending the democratic rights of all Nigerians,” she said.
She also thanked her legal team and supporters for standing by her throughout the trial.
The withdrawal of the charges comes after months of legal controversy, with several civil society groups and rights organisations earlier criticising the case and describing it as an attempt to silence free speech and political participation.
