-
Akpabio challenges Appeal Court ruling that struck out government filings in the case
-
Court faulted procedural breaches, including page limits and formatting violations
-
Dispute raises political and institutional questions beyond the legal arguments
Senate President Godswill Akpabio has taken the legal dispute surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Supreme Court, following a major setback at the Court of Appeal.
The appeal comes after the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Federal Government’s brief linked to the defamation elements of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, citing serious procedural lapses.
READ ALSO: Kidnappers Will Soon Face Death Penalty — Akpabio Reveals
ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to join our WhatsApp group and receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
In a ruling delivered on 28 November 2025, the appellate court held that the brief failed to meet mandatory requirements under the Court of Appeal Rules.
The judges pointed to violations such as the use of unauthorised font size and spacing, exceeding the prescribed 35-page limit, and failure to seek the court’s permission to regularise the defects.
The court also ruled that the Notice of Appeal itself was fundamentally flawed, stressing that the breaches were not minor technical errors but substantive violations that rendered the appeal incompetent.
As a result, the entire filing was struck out. Akpabio has since criticised the ruling, describing it as unlawful. However, certified court records and legal assessments indicate that the appellate court acted strictly within established procedural rules.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the Senate President argues that the Appeal Court denied him the right to fair hearing by refusing to allow corrections to the defective brief or grant leave to exceed the page limit.
He is asking the apex court to nullify the proceedings and allow a fresh filing.
Legal practitioners, however, maintain that the right to fair hearing does not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules, particularly where such rules are uniformly enforced.
READ ALSO: Senate Orders NSA to Probe Reports on Akpabio’s Death
They note that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same requirements, weakening claims of selective treatment or discrimination.
Beyond the legal arguments, Akpabio’s direct and sustained involvement in the case has attracted political scrutiny.
Observers describe his posture as unusual for a sitting Senate President, raising concerns about the broader political implications of the dispute.
Sources within the National Assembly say tensions between both lawmakers have been simmering for months, driven partly by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s growing profile and assertive approach to legislative issues.
Analysts describe the Appeal Court decision as a significant blow to Akpabio’s case, noting that it was lost on avoidable procedural grounds rather than the substance of the matter.
They suggest the Supreme Court move may be aimed at limiting political fallout.
Meanwhile, Akpoti-Uduaghan has maintained a restrained response, expressing confidence in the judiciary and insisting that due process must be upheld.
