A procedural dispute at the Court of Appeal has escalated into a high-stakes Supreme Court battle between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
By filing a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court, Akpoti-Uduaghan is not merely responding to an appeal; she is challenging what her camp describes as an attempt to interrupt justice at the eleventh hour.
At issue is whether a case that has been fully heard and reserved for judgment at the Court of Appeal can be paused through a fresh procedural assault at the apex court.
According to court filings, the Court of Appeal concluded hearing in the substantive matter on November 28, 2025, and reserved judgment. For Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, that fact is central: once a court has heard a matter and stepped back to decide, they argue, no party should be allowed to reroute the process simply because the outcome may be unfavourable.
The dispute is rooted in the strict mechanics of appellate practice. The Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 limit briefs of argument to 35 pages, a rule designed to ensure fairness, efficiency, and equality of arms. While Akpoti-Uduaghan and other respondents complied, the Senate President is accused of filing a brief that exceeded the limit and failing to regularise it within time. The appellate court, faced with this procedural breach, reportedly declined the document and proceeded on the basis of valid filings.
Rather than await judgment, Akpabio turned to the Supreme Court—prompting accusations of forum shopping and abuse of process. The counter-affidavit insists that the appeal raises issues of mixed law and fact, which by law require prior leave of court—leave that was allegedly never sought.
Beyond the technical arguments lies a deeper concern: the optics of power. Legal observers note that this is no ordinary litigant, but the sitting President of the Senate seeking extraordinary relief against a fellow lawmaker. The case therefore tests whether status can tilt procedure—or whether the courts will insist that rules bind the powerful as tightly as the ordinary citizen.
On claims of denied fair hearing, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s camp points to long-established jurisprudence: adjournments are discretionary, not automatic, and a court’s refusal does not amount to injustice where due opportunity has been given.
Now before the Supreme Court, the matter has outgrown its immediate parties. Its outcome may define the limits of post-hearing interventions, reinforce—or weaken—confidence in appellate finality, and clarify whether procedural discipline remains non-negotiable in Nigeria’s justice system.
At stake is more than who wins or loses. It is whether judgment, once awaited, can be indefinitely delayed by power—or whether the law will insist that justice, having been heard, must be allowed to speak
Natasha Urges Supreme Court to Throw Out Akpabio’s Appeal
