Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court of Nigeria challenging an appeal lodged by Senate President Godswill Akpabio in connection with proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents obtained by DAILY GAZETTE in Abuja show that the counter-affidavit, deposed to by a senior legislative aide to the senator, was filed in response to a Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026, brought by Akpabio before the apex court.
The respondents are urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in its entirety, arguing that it discloses no prima facie good cause and amounts to an abuse of court process.
According to the counter-affidavit, the Court of Appeal had concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and reserved the matter for judgment.
The respondents contend that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage is an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage and is awaiting final determination.
They further maintain that Akpabio was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in full compliance with the Rules of Court.
The filing states that the brief of argument submitted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was procedurally compliant and properly before the Court of Appeal, adding that it was never formally challenged during the proceedings.
At the centre of the dispute is an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages.
The respondents argue that while the legal teams representing 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 allege that Akpabio failed to regularise the defect within the timeframe allowed by the Rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the over-length brief and proceed with the appeal based on validly filed processes.
On the substantive legal issues, the respondents submit that the grounds of appeal relied upon by Akpabio raise issues of mixed law and fact, for which prior leave of court was required.
They insist that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent from the outset.
The counter-affidavit also addresses complaints relating to adjournment and fair hearing, stating that the grant or refusal of adjournment falls within the discretionary powers of the court.
It argues 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.
Urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, the respondents describe the appeal as a deliberate attempt to delay or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.
