Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court seeking to quash an appeal filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

The counter-affidavit was deposed to by a Senior Legislative Aide to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and filed in response to Senator Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.

The counter appeal is in opposition to an appeal instituted by the President of the Senate arising from proceedings at the Court of Appeal.

Akpoti-Uduaghan urged the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, arguing that it discloses no prima facie good cause and constitutes 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 reserved the matter for judgment.

The respondents contended that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage and is awaiting final determination.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that Senator Akpabio was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court.

She insisted that her brief of argument was properly filed before the lower court and procedurally compliant, and therefore was never formally challenged during the proceedings.

According to her, central to the dispute is an alleged breach of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which prescribe a maximum of 35 pages for briefs of argument.

She contended that while the legal teams representing her, the Clerk to the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the page limit, the Senate President filed a brief running well beyond the prescribed limit.

She further alleged that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the timeframe allowed by the Rules.

She said, consequently, the Court of Appeal declined to admit the over-length brief and proceeded to hear the appeal based on the valid and properly filed processes before it.

On the substantive legal issues, she argued that the grounds of appeal relied upon by Akpabio raised issues of mixed law and fact.

She insisted that prior leave of court was mandatory 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 complaints relating to adjournment and fair hearing, maintaining that the grant or refusal of an adjournment lies within the discretionary powers of the court.

She submitted that the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously and that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing at any stage of the proceedings.

Urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, Akpoti-Uduaghan described the appeal as an attempt to stall or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal. (The Nation)