Senate President Godswill Akpabio has taken the legal battle arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Supreme Court.
The move followed a ruling by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which struck out the Federal Government’s brief of argument in the appeal connected to the defamation issues linked to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension.
In its decision, the appellate court held that the brief was defective and incompetent for failing to comply with mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules.
The ruling, delivered on November 28, faulted the brief for several procedural breaches.
These included 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 also found that the Notice of Appeal itself contained fundamental flaws.
The justices ruled that the violations were not minor technical errors but substantive breaches that affected the competence of the appeal.
As a result, the entire brief was struck out.
Senator Akpabio criticised the ruling, describing it as unlawful.
However, certified records of proceedings and legal opinions indicate that the court acted within established appellate procedure.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the Senate President argued that the Court of Appeal breached his constitutional right to fair hearing by refusing to grant leave to correct the defective brief or allow him to exceed the page limit.
He is asking the apex court to nullify the appellate proceedings and permit him to refile his arguments in compliance with the rules.
Legal experts have, however, noted that the right to fair hearing does not excuse non compliance with procedural requirements, especially where such rules are applied uniformly.
They also pointed out that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team complied fully with the same rules, weakening claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.
Beyond the legal issues, Akpabio’s direct involvement in the case has attracted attention.
Political and legal observers say such involvement is unusual for a presiding officer of the National Assembly and has raised questions about the political undertone of the dispute.
Sources within the legislature say the case reflects deeper tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan, whose relationship has been strained for months.
The Kogi Central senator, a first term lawmaker, has drawn national attention for her assertive approach and readiness to challenge Senate leadership, a stance some insiders say has unsettled 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 Court of Appeal ruling as a major setback for the Senate President, noting that it arose from procedural lapses rather than the substance of the case.
They say the defeat, linked to issues such as formatting and page limits, has led to speculation that the Supreme Court appeal is aimed at limiting political fallout.
Within ruling party circles, there are indications of growing pressure on Senate leadership over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s increasing independence and public profile, which observers believe may be influencing the continued legal fight.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has responded cautiously, expressing confidence in the judiciary and insisting that due process must be followed.
Her legal team has described the Supreme Court appeal as a last attempt to overturn a decision reached in line with the law.
Meanwhile, civil society groups have warned that any effort by political office holders to influence court outcomes could weaken judicial independence and democratic governance.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the dispute has moved beyond procedural questions to a broader test of the rule of law, separation of powers and the limits of authority within Nigeria’s democratic system.
