Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court of Nigeria opposing an appeal by Senate President Godswill Akpabio arising from proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents indicate that the counter-affidavit, deposed by a senior legislative aide to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, responds to Senator Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026. The respondents are requesting that the Supreme Court dismiss the application entirely, arguing that it discloses no prima facie case and constitutes an abuse of court process.
According to the filing, the Court of Appeal concluded hearings in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and had reserved judgment. The respondents argue that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to interference with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage.
The counter-affidavit also maintains that Senator Akpabio was given adequate opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal and that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument was properly filed, procedurally compliant, and never formally challenged during the proceedings.
A key point of contention concerns the alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which set a maximum limit of 35 pages for briefs of argument. While the legal teams for Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the limit, the Senate President’s brief exceeded it and was not regularised within the timeframe allowed by the Rules. Consequently, the Court of Appeal declined to admit the over-length brief and proceeded to hear the appeal using the valid submissions before it.
On substantive issues, the respondents argue that the grounds relied upon by the appellant involve mixed questions of law and fact, requiring prior leave of court before filing. Since no such leave was sought, they contend the appeal is incompetent ab initio.
The filing also addresses allegations concerning adjournment and fair hearing, noting that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judiciously and that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing at any stage.
The respondents urge the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, describing it as an attempt to delay or frustrate the Court of Appeal’s delivery of judgment.
Legal observers note that the case could test critical issues of appellate procedure, judicial discretion, and the permissible scope of post-hearing interventions within Nigeria’s judicial system.
