The Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court, urging the apex court to dismiss an appeal lodged by Senate President Godswill Akpabio challenging proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents obtained in Abuja revealed that the counter-affidavit was deposed to by a senior legislative aide to Akpoti-Uduaghan and filed in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.
The respondents are asking the Supreme Court to strike out the application in its entirety, describing it as lacking merit and amounting to an abuse of court process.
According to the counter-affidavit, the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and subsequently reserved judgment.
The respondents argued that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage was an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage and is awaiting final determination.
They maintained that Akpabio was afforded adequate opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in line with the applicable Rules of Court.
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 alleged that while the legal teams representing Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly and another respondent complied with the prescribed page limit, the Senate President filed a brief that exceeded the allowable pages.
They further claimed that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the time allowed by the rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to reject the over-length brief and proceed with the appeal using only competent and valid processes.
On the substantive legal issues, the respondents contended that the grounds of appeal relied upon by Akpabio raised issues of mixed law and fact.
They argued that such grounds required prior leave of court before being competently filed, adding that no such leave was sought or obtained, thereby rendering the appeal incompetent from the outset.
Addressing allegations bordering on adjournment and fair hearing, the respondents submitted that the grant or refusal of an adjournment lies within the discretionary powers of the court, which they said were exercised judicially and judiciously in the matter.
The respondents therefore urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, describing it as an attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.