Senate President Godswill Akpabio has taken the legal battle arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling that dealt a significant blow to his case.
Akpabio’s move followed a decision of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which struck out the Federal Government’s brief of argument in an appeal connected to the defamation aspects of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension from the Senate.
The appellate court held that the brief was fundamentally defective and incompetent, having failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In a ruling delivered on November 28, 2025, the panel faulted the brief for several procedural violations, including the use of an unauthorised font size and line spacing, exceeding the statutory 35-page limit, and failing to seek the leave of court to regularise the defects.
The court also found that the Notice of Appeal itself was afflicted by foundational flaws.
According to the justices, the infractions were not mere technical lapses but substantive breaches that struck at the competence of the appeal. On that basis, the entire brief was struck out.
Akpabio has since criticised the decision, insisting that the ruling was unlawful. However, certified records of proceedings and legal opinions indicate that the Court of Appeal acted strictly in line with established appellate procedure.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the Senate President argued that the Court of Appeal violated his constitutional right to fair hearing by refusing to grant him leave to correct the defective brief or allow him to exceed the prescribed page limit
He is asking the apex court to nullify the appellate proceedings and permit him to refile his arguments in compliance with the rules.
Legal experts, however, have pointed out that the right to fair hearing does not excuse non-compliance with procedural requirements, particularly where such rules are uniformly applied to all parties. They noted that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same rules, undermining claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.
Beyond the legal arguments, Akpabio’s unusually direct and intense personal involvement in the case has attracted scrutiny.
Senate President’s posture as uncharacteristic of a presiding officer of the National Assembly, raising questions about the political undertones of the dispute.Politics
Sources within the legislature say the matter reflects deeper tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan, whose relationship has reportedly been strained for months.
The Kogi Central senator, a first-term lawmaker, has gained national prominence for her assertive posture and readiness to challenge Senate leadership—an approach some insiders say unsettles the existing power structure within the chamber.
“This is no longer just a legal
disagreement,” a senior parliamentary source said. “It has become a struggle over authority and control.”
Analysts describe the Court of Appeal ruling as a bruising setback for the Senate President, noting that it resulted from avoidable procedural errors rather than the substance of the case.
They argue that the loss—triggered by non-compliance with requirements such as formatting and page limits—has fuelled speculation that the Supreme Court appeal is aimed more at political damage control than legal redress.
Within ruling party circles, there are indications that pressure is mounting on Senate leadership to rein in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s growing independence and public influence, a factor observers believe may be driving the persistence of the case.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, for her part, has maintained a measured response, expressing confidence in the judiciary and reiterating that due process must prevail. Her legal team has described the Supreme Court appeal as a last-ditch attempt to overturn a decision reached strictly in accordance with the law.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have cautioned that any attempt by political office holders to influence judicial outcomes would undermine judicial independence and democratic governance.