Senate President Godswill Akpabio has approached the Supreme Court over the ongoing dispute surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The move follows a decision by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal linked to the matter after striking out the brief filed on behalf of the Federal Government.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the brief of argument associated with Akpabio’s side failed to meet required court rules. The court held that the document contained several violations, including the use of an unauthorised font size and line spacing, exceeding the permitted page limit, and failure to obtain permission to regularise the defects. Based on these issues, the appellate court declared the brief incompetent and removed it from consideration.
Following this ruling, Akpabio’s legal team filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal acted unfairly by refusing to allow corrections to the brief or grant permission to exceed the page limit. They contend that this refusal denied the Senate President the right to a fair hearing and prevented the court from addressing the substance of the case.
The suspension dispute has continued to draw public attention, with many observers viewing the legal fight as part of a wider struggle within the Senate. Sources familiar with the matter say tensions between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan have been building for months, fueled by disagreements over authority and leadership within the chamber.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, is serving her first term in the Senate and has gained notice for her firm positions and frequent challenges to Senate leadership. Some insiders believe her growing profile has contributed to friction with the Senate President.
Meanwhile, members of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team have expressed confidence in the judicial process, maintaining that the Supreme Court appeal is an attempt to reverse a decision reached through proper legal procedure. They insist that the earlier ruling was based on clear breaches of court rules rather than technical mistakes.
Analysts note that the setback suffered at the Court of Appeal stemmed from avoidable errors in filing, rather than the core arguments of the case. As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the appeal, attention remains focused on how the judgment may affect both the suspension dispute and the balance of power within the Senate.
CLICK THE LINK TO READ FULL LIST
- Advertisement -
Comments are closed.