Akpabio’s Appeal Abuse Of Process, Akpoti-Uduaghan Tells Supreme Court

THE senator resenting Kogi Central in the National Assembly, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has in a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court challenging an appeal by Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, accused him of attempting to derail a case already awaiting judgment at the Court of Appeal.
Court filings showed that the counter-affidavit, deposed to by her senior legislative aide, was submitted in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice, dated January 21.
Specifically pointing to the timing of the Motion, Akpoti-Uduaghan insisted that the Court of Appeal completed hearing the substantive appeal on November 28, last year, and reserved judgment, saying approaching the apex court at this stage amounts to a deliberate attempt to interrupt an appellate process that has effectively run its course.
She stated that the senate president had every opportunity to present his case before the appellate court and did so under the same procedural framework as the other parties, maintaining that her brief of argument was properly filed, fully compliant with the Rules of Court and never challenged during the proceedings.
According to the counter-affidavit, all other parties, including the Clerk of the National Assembly, complied with the 35-page limit imposed by the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, except the senate president.
She stated that Akpabio failed to regularise the defect within the period allowed by law, leading the court to decline the document and proceed with the appeal, using only valid and compliant processes.
The senator further argued that the grounds of appeal raised by the senate president involved issues of mixed law and fact, which required prior leave of court, a step she said was never taken; hence the appeal is described as legally defective from inception.
On claims of unfair hearing and refusal of adjournment, Akpoti-Uduaghan insisted that such decisions fall squarely within the discretion of the court, and that the court of appeal exercised that discretion properly and without prejudice.
While urging the apex court to dismiss the application in its entirety, she cautioned that allowing it would open the door to post-hearing manoeuvres capable of undermining judicial certainty.