Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has lodged a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court, opposing an appeal filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio in connection with proceedings currently before the Court of Appeal.
Court filings obtained in Abuja by her team show that the counter-affidavit was sworn to by a Senior Legislative Aide to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.
It was filed in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.
The respondents are asking the apex court to dismiss the application, arguing that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and amounts to an abuse of judicial process.
In the counter-affidavit, the respondents state that “the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and reserved the matter for judgment.”
Read also: Akpabio takes Natasha suspension dispute to Supreme Court
They contend that the move to approach the Supreme Court at this stage is premature and constitutes an attempt to disrupt an appellate process that has substantially run its course.
The filing further argued that” Senator Akpabio was given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in line with the applicable Rules of Court.”
It maintains that “the brief of argument filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was duly filed, complied with procedural requirements, and was never formally contested during the proceedings at the lower court.”
A major point of contention relates to compliance with the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to 35 pages.
The respondents claim that while the legal teams representing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly and another respondent adhered strictly to the page limit, the appellant’s brief exceeded the prescribed length.
They further argue that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the period allowed by the Rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to decline admission of the non-compliant brief and proceed with the hearing based on validly filed processes.
Read also: Akpabio, Natasha resume legal battle as Senate President heads to Supreme Court
Read also: On the substance of the appeal, the respondents submit that the grounds relied upon by the appellant raise issues of mixed law and fact. They argue that such grounds required prior leave of court to be competent, stressing that no such leave was sought or granted, thereby rendering the appeal fundamentally defective.
The counter-affidavit also addresses allegations bordering on adjournment and fair hearing, noting that decisions on adjournment fall within the discretionary powers of the court.
According to the respondents, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judiciously and judicially, insisting that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing at any point in the proceedings.
In urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, the respondents describe the appeal as a calculated effort to delay or frustrate the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.
