Senator Natasha files counter-affidavit, Opposes Akpabio’s appeal at Supreme Court

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court, challenging an appeal brought by Senate President Godswill Akpabio over proceedings at the Court of Appeal.

According to reports, documents show that the counter-affidavit was sworn to by a Senior Legislative Aide to the senator and filed in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.

In the filing, the respondents asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in its entirety, arguing that it discloses no prima facie cause of action and amounts to an abuse of court process.

They stated that the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and reserved the matter for judgment. According to them, approaching the Supreme Court at this stage is an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that is already at an advanced stage and awaiting final determination.
 

The respondents further maintained that the Senate President was given full opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court. They said the brief of argument filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was properly before the lower court, complied with procedural requirements, and was never formally challenged during the proceedings.

A key issue raised in the dispute relates to an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages. The respondents claimed that 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 exceeded the prescribed length.

They also alleged that the defect was not regularized within the period allowed by the Rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to reject the over-length brief and proceed with the hearing based on valid and properly filed processes.

On the substantive issues, the respondents argued that the grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant raise issues of mixed law and fact, for which prior leave of court is required. They insisted that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent from the outset.
 

The counter-affidavit also addressed complaints bordering on adjournment and denial of fair hearing, stating that the grant or refusal of an adjournment falls within the discretionary powers of the court. It argued 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.

The respondents urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in its entirety, with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan describing the appeal as a deliberate attempt to delay or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.