Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Counters Akpabio's Supreme Court Appeal with Procedural Arguments
In a significant political and legal development, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, has formally challenged Senate President Godswill Akpabio's appeal at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The senator filed a counter-affidavit on Monday, February 2, 2026, directly opposing the appeal initiated by Akpabio, marking a new twist in this ongoing judicial confrontation.
Legal Battle Escalates to Nigeria's Apex Court
The counter-affidavit was deposed by a senior legislative aide to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and filed in response to Senator Akpabio's motion on notice dated January 21, 2026. This legal maneuver arises from previous proceedings at the Court of Appeal, where the hearing for the substantive appeal concluded on November 28, 2025, with the matter reserved for verdict.
The respondents are urging the Supreme Court to dismiss Akpabio's application entirely, arguing that it lacks prima facie merit and constitutes an abuse of court process. They contend that approaching the Supreme Court at this advanced stage represents an attempt to interfere with an appellate process awaiting final determination.
Procedural Compliance and Page Limit Violations
Central to the dispute is an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, which prescribe a maximum of 35 pages for briefs of argument. According to the counter-affidavit:
- The legal teams representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the clerk of the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the page limit
- Senate President Akpabio filed a brief running well beyond the prescribed limit
- The appellant failed to regularize this alleged defect within the timeframe allowed by court rules
Consequently, the Court of Appeal reportedly declined to admit the over-length brief and proceeded to hear the appeal based on properly filed processes.
Fair Hearing and Judicial Discretion Arguments
The counter-affidavit addresses several substantive legal issues, including:
- Grounds of appeal: The respondents argue that Akpabio's grounds raise issues of mixed law and fact, requiring prior leave of court that was neither sought nor obtained
- Adjournment matters: The document maintains that grant or refusal of adjournment lies within the court's discretionary powers, exercised judicially in this case
- Fair hearing: Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's camp asserts the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with court rules
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's team emphasized that their brief was properly before the lower court, procedurally compliant, and never formally challenged during proceedings. They maintain that Akpabio had a full opportunity at the Court of Appeal and was not denied fair hearing at any stage.
Political Implications and Judicial Integrity
This legal confrontation between two prominent Nigerian senators carries significant political implications. The respondents describe Akpabio's appeal as an attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal, raising questions about judicial process integrity and political maneuvering within Nigeria's legislative and judicial systems.
The case continues to unfold at the Supreme Court, with both parties presenting arguments that could set important precedents for procedural compliance in Nigerian appellate courts. As the legal battle intensifies, observers await the Supreme Court's response to these procedural challenges and their potential impact on the pending appellate judgment.
