Natasha heads to Supreme Court, challenges Akpabio’s appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has taken her legal battle with Senate President Godswill Akpabio to the Supreme Court, filing a counter-affidavit to oppose an appeal he lodged following proceedings at the Court of Appeal.

According to court documents sighted in Abuja, the counter-affidavit was submitted on her behalf by a Senior Legislative Aide. The filing responds directly to a Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026, which was initiated by Senator Akpabio.

The respondents were urging the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, arguing that it discloses no prima facie good cause and constitutes an abuse of court process.

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

The respondents contended that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage amounted to an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage and was awaiting final determination.

The filing further maintained that Senator Akpabio was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court.

Central to the dispute is an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which prescribes a maximum of 35 pages for briefs of argument.

The respondents contended that while the legal teams representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk to the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the page limit, the Senate President filed a brief running well beyond the prescribed limit.

They further alleged that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the timeframe allowed by the Rules. Consequently, the Court of Appeal is said to have declined to admit the over-length brief and proceeded to hear the appeal based on the valid and properly filed processes before it.

On the substantive legal issues, the respondents argued that the grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant raised issues of mixed law and fact.

They insisted that prior leave of court was mandatory before such grounds could be competently filed and maintain that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent ab initio.

The counter-affidavit also addresses complaints relating to adjournment and fair hearing, maintaining that the grant or refusal of an adjournment lies within the discretionary powers of the court.

It submited that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously and that the appellant was not denied fair hearing at any stage of the proceedings.

Urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, the respondents describe the appeal as an attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.

With the matter now before the apex court, legal observers say the case is likely to test critical issues of appellate procedure, judicial discretion, and the permissible limits of post-hearing interventions within Nigeria’s judicial system.