The Federal High Court in Abuja, on the 30th of June, set September 22, 2025, for the commencement of trial in a cybercrime suit against the suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Udauaghan.
The trial commenced following her arraignment on six counts bordering on alleged cybercrime before Justice Mohammed Umar, to which she pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bail on self-recognition.
The charge against the senator, alleged that she made false and damaging statements against Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and former Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State.
According to the charge, Akpoti-Udauaghan was alleged to have said: “Akpabio told Yahaya Bello… that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done in Kogi, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me.”
During an appearance on Channels TV’s Politics Today, she was alleged to have reiterated the allegations, asserting: “It was part of the meeting, the discussions that Akpabio had with Yahaya Bello that night… to eliminate me.”
The charge claims Akpoti-Udauaghan allegedly transmitted false and injurious information via electronic means with the intention to malign, incite, and endanger lives and breach public order, contrary to “Section 24(2)(c)” of the Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises the intentional spread of false information to damage reputations or provoke public disorder. The Federal Government stated that the statements, widely disseminated through digital platforms, were knowingly false, injurious, and intended to malign and incite unrest.
Following her not-guilty plea and the arguments of her lawyer who convinced the court that his client did not pose a flight risk, the court granted Akpoti-Udauaghan bail in the sum of N50m and one surety who must be a person of reasonable integrity, resident in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and owns a landed property within the Abuja Municipal Area Council.
In 2023, the same Cybercrimes Act was used to facilitate the arrest of Chioma Okoli, who posted a review of Nagiko tomato puree produced by Erisco Food Limited.
Erisco, in a statement, said Okoli made a “malicious allegation” against the brand and the police, in turn charged her with two counts of “instigating people against Erisco Foods Limited, knowing the said information is false.”
That same year, journalist Daniel Ojukwu was arrested by the police and taken to the Panti police station, where he was informed that he had violated provisions of the Cybercrime Act, and other extant laws pertaining to cyber related crimes.
Since the Cybercrime Act was introduced in 2015, at least 25 journalists have been prosecuted under it according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and this persecution has gradually spread to ordinary citizens.
In May of this year, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and Nigeria Guild of Editors (NGE) released a statement urging “the government of President Bola Tinubu to immediately end the use of the draconian Cybercrimes Act to target journalists, activists, critics and other Nigerians peacefully expressing their views online, and release those in custody across the country under the legislation.”
For some time now, alarm has been raised over the vagueness of the Act, particularly the infamous Section 24, which allows the Act to be weaponized and used to bully citizens who have offended a higher power, often through criticism of any kind.
Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 previously addressed “offensive” and “annoying” statements on the internet, prescribing fines ranging from NGN 7 million to 25 million and imprisonment from one to ten years, depending on the severity of the offense. Following a 2022 ECOWAS court ruling stating that it violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Act was amended. Section 24, previously used to target dissidents was reworked so that the offence was narrowed down to only include computer messages that are pornographic or knowingly false, aiming to cause law and order breakdowns or threaten life. While this refinement is indeed an improvement on the previous position, the Act is still being abused.
On July 10th 2024, a group of civic space defenders and Nigerian journalists began a campaign with the slogan #DontPoliceMySpeech in Abuja. The campaign was a demand for the abuse of power and the misuse of the Cybercrimes Act by Nigerian authorities to come to an end. During the march, the Chairman of the Nigerian Union of Journalists reminded those present that, “Freedom of expression is entrenched in the Nigerian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Nigeria is a signatory.”
These warnings against the misuse of this Act have persisted, with the U.S. Embassy, British High Commission, Embassy of Finland, Embassy of Norway and the Canadian High Commission releasing a joint statement last month, urging the Nigerian government to respect freedom of expression and to refrain from misuse of the Cybercrimes Act in a way that undermines democratic advancement and civic participation.
While Senator Natasha Akpoti-Udauaghan stands accused of making serious allegations against prominent political figures, it is important to remember that she has denied any wrongdoing and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The claims at the heart of this case, concerning a purported threat to her life, are undoubtedly weighty and deserve a thorough, fair hearing in court.
However, the law under which she is being tried — the Cybercrimes Act — has a well-documented history of being used to suppress dissent and target individuals critical of those in power. From journalists to ordinary citizens, too many have found themselves in the crosshairs of this legislation for simply expressing unpopular opinions. As such, even as this case proceeds, it is essential that we remain alert to the possibility that what is framed as a legal matter could also be a political tool — one that, if misapplied, undermines the very foundations of free speech and democratic accountability in Nigeria.
