The legal campaign against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan suffered another major blow on Monday as an Akwa Ibom State High Court sitting in Eket struck out a high-profile defamation suit filed against the Kogi Central lawmaker over allegations relating to organ harvesting and the murder of the late Iniubong Umoren.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Pius P. Idiong, the court held that the claimant, Mr. Ukeme Umoren, failed to establish a reasonable cause of action and lacked the legal standing required to sustain a defamation claim against the senator.
The suit, marked HEK/86/25: Mr. Ukeme Umoren v. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, was challenged through a preliminary objection filed by the senator’s legal team, M.J. Numa & Partners LLP. According to court documents and information obtained by Chronicles Reporters, the court agreed with the defence on critical legal grounds and struck out the action.
The court ruled that the claimant was not mentioned in the alleged defamatory publication and therefore lacked the locus standi necessary to institute the suit. Justice Idiong further held that Akpoti-Uduaghan neither published nor caused the publication of the statements complained of by the claimant.
“The claimant was not mentioned in the alleged publication and therefore lacked the standing to maintain the suit. Furthermore, the defendant did not publish or cause to be published the statement complained of,” the court held.
In a finding that could have far-reaching implications for similar claims, the court also concluded that the senator was not the originator of the controversial allegations. Rather, she merely repeated information that had already entered the public domain before her comments became the subject of litigation.
Although the court declined the defence request to dismiss the suit outright, it struck out the matter in its entirety and made no order as to costs.
Neither Akpoti-Uduaghan nor the claimant was physically present when the ruling was delivered. While G.O. Erakpotobor represented the claimant on behalf of Nsikan Ukpong, Kingsley Ikechukwu appeared for the defendant on behalf of A.E. Imadegbelo.
The case emerged from one of the most controversial political controversies in recent years, involving allegations that sought to link Senate President Godswill Akpabio to the murder of the late Iniubong Umoren and claims of organ harvesting. Those allegations generated nationwide outrage and political tension, drawing the attention of law enforcement agencies and triggering multiple court actions.
Subsequent police investigations reportedly found no evidence to support the allegations and recommended legal action against individuals accused of spreading the claims. The fallout eventually escalated into criminal defamation proceedings against Akpoti-Uduaghan, further intensifying an already bitter political and legal confrontation.
However, in January 2026, a High Court in Abuja struck out the criminal defamation charges after the Federal Government filed a notice discontinuing the prosecution. The senator subsequently described the outcome as a vindication and maintained that the legal actions against her were politically motivated.
Monday’s ruling in Eket now represents another significant courtroom victory for Akpoti-Uduaghan and a fresh setback for attempts to hold her liable over the disputed allegations. Coming after the collapse of the criminal case in Abuja, the judgment reinforces a growing pattern of legal defeats for those seeking to pursue civil and criminal claims against the senator arising from the controversy.
For Akpoti-Uduaghan, the decision marks yet another chapter in a prolonged legal battle that has pitted her against powerful political interests and kept her at the centre of national attention. For her critics, the ruling underscores the difficulties of sustaining defamation claims where questions of standing, authorship and publication remain unresolved.
With the Eket suit now struck out and previous criminal proceedings abandoned, another major legal front in the Natasha-Akpabio saga has effectively collapsed, leaving the wider political controversy to continue outside the courtroom.