Suspension: Natasha asks Supreme Court to dismiss Akpabio’s appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s appeal over her controversial suspension, describing the application as lacking merit and constituting an abuse of court process.

Court documents marked SC/CV/1111/2025 showed that a counter-affidavit deposed by a Senior Legislative Aide to Akpoti-Uduaghan was filed in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.

The Kogi Central lawmaker’s legal team argues that Akpabio’s approach to the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to an improper attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage.

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 contend that approaching the Supreme Court while the Court of Appeal’s judgment is pending undermines the judicial process.

The counter-affidavit maintains that Senator Akpabio was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in strict compliance with the Rules of Court, and that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument was properly filed and never formally challenged during the proceedings.

Central to the dispute is an alleged violation of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, which prescribe a maximum of 35 pages for briefs of argument. The respondents contend that while legal teams representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and other respondents complied with the page limit, the Senate President filed a brief running well beyond the prescribed limit.

Furthermore, they alleged that the appellant failed to regularize the defect within the timeframe allowed by the rules, leading the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the over-length brief and proceed with the hearing based on valid and properly filed processes.

The legal battle stems from events during a February 2025 Senate plenary session when Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues of parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities. Following a recommendation by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, she was suspended for six months on March 6, 2025.

Challenging the action, Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that her suspension violated her right to fair hearing and breached Senate Standing Orders. On July 4, 2025, the court ruled the suspension unconstitutional and excessive.

ALSO READ: Tinubu approves purchase of 2 new satellites to strengthen Nigeria’s digital infrastructure

Akpabio subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal and has now approached the Supreme Court seeking extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, and recognition of his notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed.

Akpabio’s legal team maintains that the Senate acted within its constitutional powers under Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which authorizes the National Assembly to regulate its internal procedures. They argue that the presiding officer is not mandatorily bound to immediately rule on every point of privilege raised during plenary.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, insists her suspension was unlawful, excessive, and carried out without fair hearing in violation of Senate rules. She maintains that the Senate failed to comply with its own Standing Orders before imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her the opportunity to properly defend herself.

Despite completing her six-month suspension, the legal battle has continued. Akpoti-Uduaghan resumed her Senate duties on September 23, 2025, although access to her office—which had been sealed since March 6, 2025—was initially delayed due to ongoing legal resistance from Senate leadership.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could provide critical guidance on the scope of legislative disciplinary powers versus judicial oversight, and clarify the limits of parliamentary authority in disciplining members.

The case also involves a related contempt issue, with the Federal High Court having fined Akpoti-Uduaghan and ordered a public apology over a social media post made while the suit was pending—a decision she has separately appealed.

Legal observers note that the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance between legislative independence and constitutional rights of lawmakers across Nigeria.