Senate President Godswill Akpabio has taken the legal dispute arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Supreme Court, following a major setback at the Court of Appeal.
Akpabio’s move comes after the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal struck out the Federal Government’s brief of argument in an appeal connected to the defamation aspects of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension. The appellate court ruled that the brief was fundamentally defective and failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In its ruling delivered on November 28, 2025, the Court of Appeal identified multiple procedural breaches, including the use of an unauthorised font size and line spacing, exceeding the prescribed 35-page limit, and failure to seek the court’s permission to regularise the defects. The court also held that the Notice of Appeal itself suffered from foundational flaws.
The justices ruled that the violations were substantive rather than minor technical errors and went to the competence of the appeal. As a result, the entire brief of argument was struck out.
Although Akpabio has criticised the ruling as unlawful, certified court records and legal opinions indicate that the appellate court acted in line with established procedural rules.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the Senate President argued that the Court of Appeal breached his constitutional right to fair hearing by refusing to grant leave to amend the defective brief or allow an extension beyond the 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.
However, legal analysts note that the right to fair hearing does not excuse non-compliance with procedural requirements, especially when such rules are applied uniformly. They also point out that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same rules, weakening claims of unfair treatment.
Beyond the legal contest, Akpabio’s direct and sustained involvement in the case has attracted attention from political and legal observers, who describe it as unusual for a sitting Senate President. Some analysts say the development points to deeper political undercurrents behind the dispute.
Legislative sources suggest that tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan have been simmering for months. The Kogi Central senator, a first-term lawmaker, has gained national prominence for her assertive posture and willingness to challenge Senate leadership—an approach some insiders say has unsettled the existing power structure within the chamber.
“This matter has moved beyond a legal disagreement; it has become a struggle over authority and control,” a senior parliamentary source said.
Analysts have described the Appeal Court ruling as a significant blow to the Senate President, noting that the setback arose from avoidable procedural lapses rather than the substance of the case. They suggest the Supreme Court appeal may be aimed at containing political fallout.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has responded cautiously, expressing confidence in the judiciary and insisting that due process must be respected. Her legal team has characterised the Supreme Court appeal as a last-minute effort to overturn a decision reached strictly in accordance with the law.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have warned that any attempt by political office holders to influence judicial proceedings would undermine judicial independence and democratic governance.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter, the dispute has evolved into a broader national test of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the limits of authority within Nigeria’s democratic system.
