The senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria, asking it to strike out an appeal filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio over proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents obtained in Abuja show that Akpoti-Uduaghan filed a counter-affidavit in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026. The affidavit was sworn to by a senior legislative aide to the senator.
In the filing, the respondents urged the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, describing it as frivolous, lacking merit, and an abuse of the court process.
They stated that the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and had reserved judgment. According to them, Akpabio’s move to the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that is already at an advanced stage.
The respondents maintained that the Senate President was given ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The dispute partly centres on an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which restrict briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages. The respondents alleged that while all other parties complied with the page limit, Akpabio’s legal team submitted a brief that exceeded the allowed length.
They further claimed that the defect was not regularised within the time permitted by the rules, leading the Court of Appeal to reject the brief and proceed with the appeal based solely on properly filed processes.
On the substantive issues, the respondents argued that Akpabio’s grounds of appeal raised questions of mixed law and fact, which required prior leave of court. They noted that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent.
Addressing allegations of denial of fair hearing and improper adjournment, the respondents submitted that decisions on adjournment fall within the discretionary powers of the court and were exercised appropriately.
They therefore urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, describing it as an attempt to delay or obstruct the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.