Senate President Godswill Akpabio has escalated the protracted legal dispute over the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central) by filing an appeal at the Supreme Court. The move seeks to overturn a November 28, 2025, ruling by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which struck out the Federal Government's brief of argument in the appeal related to the senator's suspension.
Akpabio's notice of appeal, dated December 1, 2025, argues that the appellate court violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution by refusing to grant leave to regularize a defective brief or permit an extension beyond the prescribed 35-page limit. He contends that the infractions—such as unauthorized font size, line spacing, and page exceedance—were not substantive enough to warrant striking out the entire brief. Additionally, Akpabio alleges unequal treatment, claiming Akpoti-Uduaghan's brief also deviated from formatting rules (e.g., font size 12 and single spacing instead of the mandated 14 and 1.5) yet was accepted without sanction.
The Senate President is urging the apex court to set aside the Court of Appeal's proceedings, nullify the judgment, and allow refiling of the brief in compliance with rules. Legal experts note that while fair hearing rights are fundamental, they do not override mandatory procedural compliance, especially since Akpoti-Uduaghan's team adhered strictly to the rules.
The case traces back to Akpoti-Uduaghan's six-month suspension by the Akpabio-led Senate in March 2025, following her protest over seat relocation during plenary and accusations of misconduct. She challenged the suspension at the Federal High Court (Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025), which invalidated it as excessive and unconstitutional, ordering her reinstatement. Akpabio appealed, but the Court of Appeal's procedural strike-out dealt a significant setback.
Observers describe the dispute as emblematic of deeper tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan, an outspoken first-term senator known for challenging perceived leadership excesses. Sources within the National Assembly suggest the matter transcends legalities, reflecting a power struggle within the Senate. Akpoti-Uduaghan's rising profile has reportedly unsettled some establishment figures, fueling speculation of political motivations behind the persistence.
Akpoti-Uduaghan's legal team has expressed confidence in the judiciary, characterizing the Supreme Court appeal as a "last-ditch effort" to revisit a lawful procedural decision. "We have been served, but this is just another needless misadventure that will lead to nowhere," a member of her team stated anonymously.
The optics of the Appeal Court loss—rooted in avoidable errors like formatting and page limits—have drawn commentary on the quality of representation for the Federal Government and Senate leadership. Constitutional scholars caution that escalating procedural matters to the Supreme Court risks overburdening the apex bench, traditionally reserved for substantial constitutional questions.
As the case heads to Nigeria's highest court, it underscores ongoing debates about legislative privileges, judicial oversight of internal parliamentary affairs, and the balance between procedural rigor and substantive justice. The outcome could set precedents for how courts handle appeals involving public officials.
