The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has granted an order for substituted service on Senator Onyekachi Nwaebonyi. The ruling comes as part of an ongoing N5 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan over explosive claims that she allegedly had six children for different men.
Justice Angela Otaluk issued the ruling on Wednesday after hearing a motion ex parte brought by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Yahuza Mohammed Zakari. The motion, dated April 10, 2025, sought the court’s permission to serve Senator Nwaebonyi by publishing the notice in a national newspaper or delivering it through the Clerk of the National Assembly or Clerk of the Senate.
The defamation suit, which has already captured national attention, stems from public statements allegedly made by Nwaebonyi, the Senator representing Ebonyi North Central Senatorial District. Akpoti-Uduaghan claims the statements were not only false but deliberately crafted to tarnish her image, subject her to widespread ridicule, and inflict emotional and psychological harm.
Read also:
- Natasha Drama Escalates: Senate Clerk shown the door by Akpabio
- Natasha/Akpabio feud: Senate fast progressing in error, ex-Rep. Yusuf declares
- Sandra Duru accuses Hope Uzodinma, others of sponsoring Senator Natasha in explosive allegations
Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central in the Nigerian Senate currently under six months suspension, is pushing back hard against what she describes as a politically motivated smear campaign. She has also petitioned the Inspector General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, calling for an immediate investigation into the defamatory claims. Her petition, dated May 15, 2025, named Senate President Godswill Akpabio and US-based Nigerian activist Sandra Duru, also known as Professor Mgbeke, as key figures allegedly involved in the scandal.
The petition has been copied to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, further raising the stakes in what is shaping up to be one of the high-profile political defamation cases in recent memory.
With the court now allowing substituted service through newspaper publication, all eyes are on the June 25th hearing date when the case will resume. The outcome could have far-reaching implications not just for the parties involved but for the larger political landscape as the 2027 elections inch closer.
