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.

The Jigawa State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has rejected the suspension of former Governor Sule Lamido from the party’s Board of Trustees (BoT), describing the decision as unjust, counterproductive, and damaging to party unity.

The BoT announced Lamido’s suspension on Friday, citing alleged anti-party activities and inflammatory statements during recent internal disputes.

The move has sparked controversy and heightened divisions within the party’s Jigawa chapter, raising concerns ahead of upcoming elections.

Reacting to the suspension, Jigawa PDP State Chairman Babandi Gumel, in a statement issued on Saturday in Dutse, said the action was a direct affront to justice, internal democracy, and reconciliation efforts championed by the party.

He noted that Lamido had sought judicial redress after being denied the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest the party’s national chairmanship.

“The Federal High Court in Abuja ruled in his favour, restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until Lamido’s right to contest is determined,” Gumel said.

“Suspending him now is premature, prejudicial, and shows disrespect for the judicial process.”

He further highlighted Lamido’s loyalty to the party, noting that as a founding member, he has never defected to another party.

“Punishing such loyalty sends a chilling message to all dedicated members,” Gumel added.

The Jigawa PDP chairman emphasised that the party’s strength lies in inclusion rather than exclusion, and pointed out that the PDP constitution does not allow for the suspension of a “life member” like Lamido.

“The BoT must immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension, apologise to this elder statesman, and align its actions with recent calls for reconciliation.”

“The Jigawa PDP remains committed to a strong, united, and democratic party that respects the rule of law and the dignity of its members,” Gumel concluded.

Abubakar Malami,

The Kebbi State Government has denied any role in the ongoing Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigation involving former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.

According to the state, the petitions prompting the EFCC probe did not originate from Kebbi, stressing that it has no connection to the matter.

Malami was first invited by the EFCC on November 28 over issues related to the recovery of the Abacha loot during his tenure as Attorney General.

On November 29, he tweeted that his interrogation was “productive” and described the allegations against him as “fabricated.”

However, after returning to the EFCC on December 8, he has remained in custody, reportedly for failing to meet bail conditions.

His arrest came shortly after he declared his intention to contest the Kebbi State governorship election in 2027, fueling social media speculation that his detention might be politically motivated.

Ahmed Idris, Chief Press Secretary to Governor Nasir Idris, dismissed such claims, saying “The Kebbi State Government has no hand in Malami’s case; it predates this administration.”

The petitions against him come from Abuja and some of his colleagues, not Kebbi. Anyone claiming otherwise is being mischievous and heartless, as the state government is not involved and is not fully aware of the developments in his case.”

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has invited billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote to provide additional details over his petition against the immediate past Managing Director of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), Alhaji Farouk Ahmed.

Dangote is expected to appear before the commission on Monday or be represented by his lawyer, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), as investigation into the petition formally begins.

Sources at the anti-graft agency disclosed that a special panel of investigators was constituted on Friday to handle the case.

The panel was reportedly directed by the ICPC Chairman, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu (SAN), to prioritise Dangote’s petition, underscoring the seriousness attached to the matter.

According to the sources, Dangote has been asked to formally adopt the petition and submit documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The commission is expected to thereafter isolate the issues raised and invite Ahmed to respond.

Dangote had accused the former NMDPRA boss of corruption, abuse of office and economic sabotage, alleging that Ahmed spent over $7 million on the education of his four children in Switzerland without lawful means of income.

The petition reportedly detailed the names of the children, the schools attended and specific amounts paid.

The businessman further alleged that Ahmed undermined local refining by colluding with oil importers and international traders through the continued issuance of petroleum import licences, despite domestic refining capacity.

Although Ahmed has since resigned his position, ICPC officials maintained that the resignation would not halt the probe, describing the investigation as being in the public interest.

A source at the commission said the agency would be fair to all parties involved, noting that Section 19 of the ICPC Act criminalises the use of public office for personal or family benefit, with penalties including imprisonment.

Dangote, through his lawyer, had demanded Ahmed’s arrest, investigation and prosecution, alleging that the former regulator lived far beyond his legitimate earnings as a public servant.

The dispute between Dangote and petroleum regulators had earlier escalated into a N100 billion lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE at the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging import licences issued by NMDPRA and other agencies.

The suit was later withdrawn in July 2025.
Confirming the development, ICPC spokesperson John Okor Odey said the commission received a formal petition from Dangote on December 16, 2025, adding that the allegations would be thoroughly investigated.