Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, challenging an appeal brought by the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, following proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents obtained in Abuja indicate that the counter-affidavit was sworn to by a Senior Legislative Aide to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and submitted in response to Senator Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.
According to the documents, the respondents are asking the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, contending that it discloses no prima facie good cause and amounts to an abuse of court process.
They further stated that the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and had reserved the matter for judgment.
The respondents argued that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage is an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that is already at an advanced stage and awaiting final determination.
The filing also maintained that the Senate President was given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in full compliance with the Rules of Court.
It asserted that the brief of argument filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was properly before the lower court, met all procedural requirements, and was never formally challenged during the proceedings.
At the heart of the dispute is an alleged violation of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages.
The respondents claimed that while the legal teams representing Senator 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 further alleged that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the timeframe allowed by the Rules, leading the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the over-length brief and proceed with the appeal based on the valid processes before it.
On the substantive issues, the respondents argued that the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant involve mixed law and fact.
They insisted that prior leave of court was required before such grounds could be competently filed and maintained that no such leave was sought or obtained, rendering the appeal incompetent ab initio.
The counter-affidavit also addressed concerns relating to adjournment and fair hearing, stating that decisions on adjournment fall within the discretionary powers of the court. It added that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously, and that the appellant was not denied fair hearing at any point in the proceedings.
The respondents therefore urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application in full, with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan describing the appeal as an attempt to delay or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.