Senator Natasha Submits Counter-Affidavit, Challenges Akpabio’s Supreme Court Appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has lodged a counter-affidavit with the Supreme Court contesting an appeal initiated by Senate President Godswill Akpabio concerning proceedings that occurred at the Court of Appeal.

Reports indicate that the counter-affidavit was sworn by a Senior Legislative Aide to the senator and filed in response to Akpabio's Motion on Notice, which is dated January 21, 2026.

In the submitted documents, the respondents urged the Supreme Court to reject Akpabio's application in its entirety, asserting that it does not establish a clear cause of action and constitutes an abuse of judicial process.

They argued that the Court of Appeal had already completed hearings on the substantive appeal by November 28, 2025, and was awaiting judgment. The respondents contended that seeking intervention from the Supreme Court at this juncture is an attempt to disrupt a process that is already significantly advanced and ready for resolution.

Furthermore, the respondents claimed that Akpabio had ample opportunity to argue his case before the Court of Appeal, adhering strictly to the established court rules. They maintain that the argument submitted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was duly placed before the lower court, met procedural guidelines, and remained unchallenged during the hearing.

One significant concern raised involves an alleged violation of the Court of Appeal Rules of 2021, which impose a limit of 35 pages for briefs of argument. The respondents asserted that while both the legal defense teams for Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Clerk of the National Assembly complied with this limit, Akpabio's brief surpassed the required length.

It was also alleged that this procedural discrepancy was not rectified within the timeframe outlined by the Rules, leading the Court of Appeal to reject the over-length brief and continue hearings based on properly filed submissions.

On the merits of the appeal, the respondents contended that the grounds presented by the appellant involve issues of law and fact, necessitating prior court permission which they claim was neither sought nor granted, thus rendering the appeal invalid from the beginning.

The counter-affidavit also addressed allegations regarding delays and the right to a fair hearing, clarifying that the decision to grant or deny adjournments resides within the court’s discretionary powers. It argued that the Court of Appeal acted judiciously within its discretion and that the appellant was afforded a fair hearing at every phase of the process.

The respondents called upon the Supreme Court to dismiss Akpabio's application entirely, with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan describing the appeal as a calculated effort to obstruct the timely delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.