Akpabio seeks Supreme Court review of Appeal court decision on Natasha Akpoti’s suspension 

Godswill Akpabio, Senate President has approached the Supreme Court to challenge a ruling of the Court of Appeal in a case involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central.

Akpabio’s appeal follows a judgment delivered by the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal on November 28 in suit number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025.

The appellate court had overturned the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan imposed by the Senate under Akpabio’s leadership.

At the heart of the appeal is the Court of Appeal’s decision to deny Akpabio permission to rely on his brief of argument, which exceeded the 35-page limit set by the court’s rules.

Read also: Sexual harassment: Akpabio files N200bn defamation suit against Natasha

The court also declined his request to submit a revised brief that complied with the prescribed page limit.

In documents filed at the Supreme Court, Akpabio, represented by a legal team led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, argued that the appellate court’s actions violated his right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

He further alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument did not comply with the Court of Appeal’s formatting standards.

According to him, the rules require the use of font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing, but the respondent allegedly used smaller font size 12 and single spacing, enabling her to remain within the 35-page limit.

Akpabio maintained that the respondent neither sought nor obtained the court’s permission to depart from the prescribed formatting rules.

He also contended that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s notice of appeal was defective, prompting him to raise a preliminary objection.

He explained that under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, such objections must be incorporated into the appellant’s brief of argument, thereby necessitating a longer submission.

According to Akpabio, he filed a motion on November 6 requesting leave to submit a brief exceeding the page limit due to the complexity and volume of issues involved.

He cited Order 19 Rule 6(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows the court to permit longer briefs where circumstances demand.

Despite this, he said the Court of Appeal rejected his application and proceeded to hear the case, while allowing the respondent’s allegedly non-compliant brief.

In his appeal, Akpabio accused the appellate court of prioritising speed over justice, arguing that he was denied equal treatment and a fair opportunity to present his case.

He further stated that there was no urgency that justified the court’s refusal to allow him to refile his brief and claimed the decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Akpabio is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling, nullify the proceedings conducted on November 28, 2025, and set aside the judgment that followed those proceedings.