The dispute arose from a Senate plenary session in February 2025, during which Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues bordering on parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal decisions linked to the controversy surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s removal from legislative duties.

Court documents obtained by SaharaReporters show that Akpabio, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, has filed fresh processes at the apex court seeking to regularise and sustain his appeal over the suspension...TAP TO CONTINUE FULL READING.

The suit, filed at the Supreme Court in Abuja, lists Akpabio as the appellant, while the respondents include Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuen.

The dispute arose from a Senate plenary session in February 2025, during which Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues bordering on parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities.

The matter was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, a process that culminated in her suspension from legislative activities.

Dissatisfied with the action, the Kogi Central senator approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging violations of her constitutional right to fair hearing and non-compliance with the Senate Standing Orders.

In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, the trial court examined critical questions relating to parliamentary privilege, internal legislative procedure and the scope of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.

Following proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Akpabio has now escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, and an order deeming his notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed and served.

In the application brought pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Akpabio argued that the appeal raises substantial constitutional and procedural issues deserving the attention of the apex court.

He contended that the Senate acted within its powers under Section 60 of the Constitution, which authorises the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure.

Akpabio’s legal team further argued that the presiding officer of the Senate is not mandatorily required to immediately rule on every point of privilege raised during plenary and that the Senate lawfully activated its internal disciplinary mechanisms in response to what it described as disorderly conduct.

The court document reads in part: “Your Lordships, the courts have consistently held that rules of court are handmaids of justice. Thus, procedural rules must yield to constitutional imperatives whenever strict compliance would result in injustice or denial of fair hearing. Please see the decision in Akiode & Ors v. Obi & Ors (2021) LPELR-56005(CA) @ 65-66 Paras CE, where the Court held that: ‘…. such rules must of necessity give way to those fundamental legal principles, for the simple reason that although both the rules and the principles are aimed at attaining the same objective, a rule of procedure must always take a backseat in the face of a fundamental legal principle, in this case the fundamental principle of fair hearing’.

“Accordingly, your Lordships are humbly urged to hold that the rule on joint briefs is designed for procedural efficiency, not to stifle substantive justice and fair hearing. What is more? The 1st Respondent, before the lower Court, created the illusion of complying with the 35-page limit as prescribed by the rules of this Honourable Court when, in fact, a smaller font and single line spacing were used in preparing her Brief contrary to Order 19 Rule 3(6)b of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011.

“Based on the foregoing, the Appellant submits that a refusal of the instant appeal will not only amount to a breach of his right to a fair hearing, which is constitutionally guaranteed, but also amount to an imbalance in hearing opportunities.”

“The Appellant has established beyond any iota of doubt that the lower Court denied him a fair hearing; your Lordships are humbly urged to so hold and set aside the Ruling of the lower Court,” the document concluded.

In November 2025, the appellate court struck out the Senate President’s brief of argument because it was “incurably defective.” Specifically, it violated several procedural requirements, including exceeding the 35-page limit and using incorrect formatting.

The court declined Akpabio’s application to file an extended brief, proceeding to hear the case despite his objections.

The court awarded N100,000 in costs to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.

The dismissal effectively upheld the lower court’s finding that the Senate’s six-month suspension of the senator was “excessive” and unconstitutional.

Akpoti-Uduaghan has consistently maintained that her suspension was unlawful, excessive and carried out in violation of her right to fair hearing.

She insisted that the Senate failed to comply with its own Standing Orders before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her a fair opportunity to defend herself.

SaharaReporters confirmed on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal counsel was formally served with the Supreme Court processes relating to the appeal, effectively joining issues and paving the way for a full legal contest at the apex court.

The case also involves a related contempt proceeding arising from a social media post made by the senator during the pendency of the suit.

The Federal High Court had ruled that the post violated a subsisting restraining order, imposing a fine and ordering a public apology.

Akpoti-Uduaghan had challenged the decision on appeal, arguing that the alleged contempt was criminal in nature and required strict compliance with statutory procedures.