Day: December 22, 2025

Akpabio heads to Supreme Court over Appeal Court ruling on Natasha Akpoti’s suspension Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which nullified the suspension of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi Central. Akpabio filed a notice of appeal against the appellate court’s decision delivered on November 28, 2025, in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025, arising from the Senate’s disciplinary action against Akpoti-Uduaghan. The appeal follows the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant Akpabio leave to rely on his brief of argument, which exceeded the 35-page limit stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules. The court also declined his request to file a replacement brief within the prescribed page limit. Through his legal team led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), Akpabio argued that the decision violated his constitutional right to fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. He further alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument failed to comply with formatting requirements, including the use of font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing, claiming the respondent used smaller fonts and single spacing to remain within the page limit without seeking the court’s permission. Akpabio also contended that the respondent’s notice of appeal was fundamentally defective, prompting him to file a preliminary objection, which by law must be argued within the same brief — a development he said necessitated a longer submission. He maintained that the Court of Appeal erred by refusing his application for an extended brief while allegedly overlooking the respondent’s non-compliance, describing the ruling as unequal treatment. “The court below sacrificed justice on the altar of speed,” Akpabio stated, adding that there was no urgency that justified the refusal to allow him re-file his brief. He urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Court of Appeal’s proceedings and final judgment, arguing that the refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice.Akpabio heads to Supreme Court over Appeal Court ruling on Natasha Akpoti’s suspension Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which nullified the suspension of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi Central. Akpabio filed a notice of appeal against the appellate court’s decision delivered on November 28, 2025, in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025, arising from the Senate’s disciplinary action against Akpoti-Uduaghan. The appeal follows the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant Akpabio leave to rely on his brief of argument, which exceeded the 35-page limit stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules. The court also declined his request to file a replacement brief within the prescribed page limit. Through his legal team led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), Akpabio argued that the decision violated his constitutional right to fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. He further alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument failed to comply with formatting requirements, including the use of font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing, claiming the respondent used smaller fonts and single spacing to remain within the page limit without seeking the court’s permission. Akpabio also contended that the respondent’s notice of appeal was fundamentally defective, prompting him to file a preliminary objection, which by law must be argued within the same brief — a development he said necessitated a longer submission. He maintained that the Court of Appeal erred by refusing his application for an extended brief while allegedly overlooking the respondent’s non-compliance, describing the ruling as unequal treatment. “The court below sacrificed justice on the altar of speed,” Akpabio stated, adding that there was no urgency that justified the refusal to allow him re-file his brief. He urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Court of Appeal’s proceedings and final judgment, arguing that the refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

NTMNTM 0 Comments 00:53