Senate President Godswill Akpabio has escalated the legal battle arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, heading to the Supreme Court to challenge a ruling of the Court of Appeal that dealt a major blow to his case.

The move followed a decision of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which struck out the Federal Government’s brief of argument in the appeal linked to the defamation aspects of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension.
The appellate court held that the brief was fundamentally defective and incompetent, having failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In a ruling delivered on 28 November 2025, the appellate panel faulted the brief for multiple procedural violations, including the use of an unauthorised font size and line spacing, exceeding the statutory 35-page limit, and failure to seek leave of court to regularise the defects.

The court further found that the Notice of Appeal itself was afflicted by foundational flaws.
The justices ruled that the infractions were not minor technical lapses but substantive breaches that went to the competence of the appeal. Consequently, the entire brief was struck out.
Akpabio has since criticised the ruling, insisting it was unlawful. However, certified records of proceedings and legal opinions indicate that the court acted strictly within established appellate procedure.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the Senate President argued that the Court of Appeal violated his constitutional right to fair hearing by refusing to grant leave to correct the defective brief or permit him to exceed the page limit.
He is urging the apex court to nullify the appellate proceedings and allow him to refile his arguments in line with the rules.
Legal experts, however, note that the right to fair hearing does not exempt litigants from complying with procedural requirements, particularly where such rules are uniformly applied.

They pointed out that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same rules, weakening claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.
Beyond the courtroom, Akpabio’s unusually intense personal involvement in the case has drawn scrutiny.
Political and legal observers describe the Senate President’s posture as uncharacteristic for a presiding officer of the National Assembly, raising questions about the political subtext of the dispute.

Sources within the legislature say the matter reflects deeper tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan, whose relationship has been strained for months.
The Kogi Central senator, a first-term lawmaker, has gained national attention for her assertive stance and willingness to challenge Senate leadership, a profile some insiders say unsettles the power structure within the chamber.
“This is no longer just a legal disagreement,” a senior parliamentary source said. “It has become a struggle over authority and control.”

Analysts describe the Appeal Court ruling as a bruising setback for the Senate President, noting that it stemmed from avoidable procedural errors rather than the substance of the case.
The loss, triggered by non-compliance over issues such as formatting and page limits, has fuelled speculation that the Supreme Court appeal is aimed at political damage control.
Within ruling party circles, there are indications that pressure is mounting on Senate leadership to curb Akpoti-Uduaghan’s rising independence and public influence, a factor observers believe may be driving the persistence of the case.

Akpoti-Uduaghan has maintained a measured response, expressing confidence in the judiciary and reiterating that due process must prevail. Her legal team has described the Supreme Court appeal as a last-ditch effort to overturn a decision reached strictly in accordance with the law.
Meanwhile, civil society groups have warned that any attempt by political office holders to influence judicial outcomes would undermine judicial independence and democratic governance.
As the Supreme Court prepares to take up the matter, the dispute has grown beyond a procedural appeal into a broader national test of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the limits of authority within Nigeria’s democratic institutions.