Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan has lodged a counter‑affidavit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria challenging an appeal filed by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, arising from proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents filed in Abuja indicate that the counter‑affidavit, deposed to by a Senior Legislative Aide to Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan, was submitted in response to Senator Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated 21 January 2026. The respondents urged the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, contending that it discloses no prima facie case and amounts to an abuse of court process.
The filing notes that the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on 28 November 2025 and reserved judgment. It argues that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage constitutes an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that is at an advanced stage and awaiting final determination.
The respondents further maintain that Senator Akpabio was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court. They assert that the brief of argument filed by Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan was procedurally compliant and never formally challenged during the proceedings.
A central issue raised is the alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to 35 pages. While the legal teams representing Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the page limit, the Senate President’s brief allegedly exceeded the prescribed length. The respondents contend that the defect was not regularised within the timeframe allowed, leading the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the over‑length brief and to proceed on the valid processes before it.
On substantive grounds, the respondents argue that the appeal raises issues of mixed law and fact, for which prior leave of court was mandatory. They insist that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent ab initio.
The counter‑affidavit also addresses complaints of adjournment and fair hearing, stressing that the grant or refusal of adjournment lies within the discretionary powers of the court. It submits that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously, and that the appellant was not denied fair hearing at any stage.
The respondents’ prayer is for the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in its entirety. Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan described the appeal as a deliberate attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.
