Akpoti-Uduaghan Urges S’Court to Quash Akpabio’s Appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has asked the Supreme Court to strike out an appeal filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, describing it as legally baseless and an abuse of judicial process.

In a counter-affidavit filed at the apex court, Akpoti-Uduaghan challenged Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026, which arose from proceedings already concluded at the Court of Appeal. The counter-affidavit was deposed to by a Senior Legislative Aide to the senator.

She urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in its entirety, arguing that it discloses no prima facie good cause and was brought solely to interfere with an ongoing appellate process.

According to the counter-affidavit, the Court of Appeal concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and reserved the matter for judgment.

Akpoti-Uduaghan maintained that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to an improper attempt to disrupt proceedings that have reached an advanced stage and are awaiting final determination.

READ ALSO: FG Withdraws Criminal Defamation Suit Against Senator Natasha

She further stated that Akpabio was given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court, adding that her brief of argument was duly filed, procedurally compliant, and never formally challenged during the hearing.

Central to the dispute, she explained, is an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which set a maximum of 35 pages for briefs of argument. She contended that while the legal teams representing her, the Clerk to the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the page limit, the Senate President’s brief exceeded the prescribed length.

She alleged that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the timeframe allowed under the Rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the over-length brief and proceed with the appeal based on the valid processes properly before it.

On the substantive issues, Akpoti-Uduaghan argued that the grounds of appeal relied upon by Akpabio raised questions of mixed law and fact. She insisted that prior leave of court was mandatory for such grounds to be competently filed, adding that no such leave was sought or obtained, thereby rendering the appeal incompetent ab initio.

The counter-affidavit also addressed claims relating to adjournment and fair hearing, maintaining that decisions on adjournment fall within the discretionary powers of the court. She submitted that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously and that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing at any point in the proceedings.

In urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, Akpoti-Uduaghan described the appeal as a calculated attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.