Senate President Godswill Akpabio has taken his legal dispute arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Supreme Court, following a damaging ruling by the Court of Appeal that struck out his appeal on procedural grounds.
The move comes after the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Federal Government’s brief of argument in the matter, holding that it was fundamentally defective and incompetent.
The appellate court ruled that the brief failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In its ruling delivered on November 28, 2025, the court identified multiple violations, 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 panel also found that the Notice of Appeal itself was flawed, describing the breaches as substantive rather than minor technical lapses.
Consequently, the court struck out the entire brief, dealing a major blow to Akpabio’s case.
The Senate President has since faulted the decision, describing it as unlawful.
However, certified court records and legal opinions indicate that the appellate court acted strictly in line with established procedure.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Akpabio 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 him exceed the page limit.
He is asking the apex court to set aside the appellate proceedings and permit him to refile his arguments in compliance with the rules.
Legal practitioners, however, have pointed out that the right to fair hearing does not absolve litigants from complying with procedural requirements, especially where such rules are applied uniformly.
They also note that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same rules, weakening claims of discrimination.
Beyond the legal arguments, Akpabio’s deep personal involvement in the case has attracted scrutiny.
Political and legal observers describe the Senate President’s posture as unusual for a presiding officer of the National Assembly, raising questions about the political undertones of the dispute.
Sources within the legislature say the case reflects longstanding tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The Kogi Central senator, a first-term lawmaker, has gained national prominence for her assertiveness and willingness to challenge Senate leadership, a profile that some insiders believe has unsettled the power structure within the chamber.
“This has gone beyond a legal disagreement,” a senior parliamentary source said. “It has become a struggle over authority and control.”
Analysts describe the Appeal Court ruling as a significant setback for the Senate President, noting that it stemmed from avoidable procedural errors rather than the substance of the case.
The loss has fuelled speculation that the Supreme Court appeal is aimed largely at containing political fallout.
Within ruling party circles, there are indications that pressure is mounting on Senate leadership to rein in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s growing independence and public influence, a factor observers believe may be driving the persistence of the legal battle.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has maintained a restrained response, expressing confidence in the judiciary and insisting that due process must be allowed to run its course.
Her legal team has described the Supreme Court appeal as a last-ditch attempt to overturn a decision reached strictly in accordance with the law.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have cautioned that any effort by political office holders to influence judicial outcomes would undermine judicial independence and democratic governance.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter, the dispute has expanded beyond a procedural appeal, emerging as a broader test of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the limits of authority within Nigeria’s democratic system.
