Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Files Counter-Affidavit at Supreme Court
In a significant legal development, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has formally submitted a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This legal document directly challenges an appeal initiated by Senate President Godswill Akpabio regarding proceedings that previously unfolded at the Court of Appeal.
Legal Challenge Against Akpabio's Motion
According to verified court documents, the counter-affidavit was sworn to by a Senior Legislative Aide representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. This filing serves as a direct response to Akpabio's Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026. The respondents in this case have made a clear request to the Supreme Court: they urge the complete dismissal of Akpabio's application in its entirety.
The legal team representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan presents a compelling argument. They assert that the application discloses no prima facie cause of action and, more seriously, amounts to what they characterize as an abuse of court process. This strong language underscores the intensity of this legal confrontation between two prominent political figures.
Timing and Procedural Concerns
The respondents highlight crucial timing issues in their filing. They note that the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and had reserved the matter for judgment. According to their legal position, approaching the Supreme Court at this particular juncture represents an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that is already at an advanced stage and currently awaits final determination.
Furthermore, the respondents maintain that Senate President Akpabio was given full opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal. They emphasize that this occurred in strict compliance with established Rules of Court. The brief of argument filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, they contend, was properly before the lower court, complied with all procedural requirements, and was never formally challenged during the actual proceedings.
Alleged Breach of Court Rules
A central issue in this dispute revolves around an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules from 2021. These rules explicitly limit briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages. The respondents claim that while the legal teams representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, and another respondent all complied with this page limit, the Senate President's brief exceeded the prescribed length.
They further allege that this procedural defect was not regularized within the period allowed by the Rules. Consequently, the Court of Appeal reportedly rejected the over-length brief and proceeded with the hearing based only on valid and properly filed legal processes.
Substantive Legal Arguments
On substantive legal grounds, the respondents argue that the grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant raise issues of mixed law and fact. For such matters, prior leave of court is required. They insist that no such leave was ever sought or obtained, which they claim renders the appeal incompetent from the very outset.
The counter-affidavit also addresses complaints related to adjournment and alleged denial of fair hearing. It states clearly that the grant or refusal of an adjournment falls within the discretionary powers of the court. The document argues that the Court of Appeal exercised this discretion both judicially and judiciously, and that the appellant was not denied fair hearing at any stage of the proceedings.
Call for Dismissal and Allegations of Delay Tactics
In their concluding arguments, the respondents strongly urge the Supreme Court to dismiss the application completely. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan herself has characterized the appeal as a deliberate attempt to delay or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal. This framing suggests strategic concerns about the timing and purpose of the legal challenge.
This legal filing represents another chapter in the ongoing political and legal dynamics within Nigeria's legislative and judicial systems. The outcome of this Supreme Court consideration could have significant implications for both the individuals involved and broader procedural standards within Nigeria's appellate courts.
