Akpabio heads to Supreme Court over appeal court ruling on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has approached the Supreme Court to challenge a ruling of the Court of Appeal that overturned the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central.

Akpabio filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal delivered on November 28, 2025, in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025. The appellate court had set aside the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate presided over by Akpabio.

At the centre of the appeal is the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant Akpabio leave to rely on his brief of argument, which exceeded the 35-page limit allowed under the Court of Appeal Rules. The court also declined his request to file a replacement brief that would comply with the prescribed page limit.

In the notice of appeal filed by his legal team led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a senior advocate of Nigeria, Akpabio argued that the decision violated his constitutional right to fair hearing as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

He contended that while his brief was rejected for exceeding the page limit, the court allowed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument despite alleged non-compliance with formatting rules. According to him, the respondent’s brief was prepared using font size 12 with single line spacing instead of the required font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing, which he said was the reason it fell within the page limit.

Akpabio maintained that the respondent did not seek the court’s permission to depart from the rules. He also argued that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s notice of appeal was fundamentally defective, prompting him to file a notice of preliminary objection.

He explained that under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a preliminary objection must be argued within the brief of argument, making it necessary for him to file a longer brief that addressed both the objection and the substantive appeal.

According to Akpabio, he filed a motion on November 6 seeking leave to rely on a brief exceeding 35 pages because the issues involved were substantial and complex. He cited Order 19 Rule 6(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which empowers the court to permit longer briefs where necessary.

He faulted the appellate court for refusing his application and proceeding with the hearing, describing the decision as unequal treatment and a denial of fair hearing. He argued that there was no urgency that justified the refusal to allow him re-file his brief within the permitted page limit.

In his appeal, Akpabio stated that the court “sacrificed justice on the altar of speed” and that its refusal to grant him the opportunity to properly present his case resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

He is asking the Supreme Court to allow his appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, nullify the proceedings of November 28, 2025 conducted after the refusal to grant leave, and overturn the final judgment that followed those proceedings.