The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dealt a legal blow to Senate President Godswill Akpabio by striking out two motions filed by him and ordering him to pay ₦100,000 in costs. The ruling comes after Akpabio voluntarily sought to withdraw the motions related to an ongoing case with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
This judicial development reinforces legal precedents around procedural compliance and emphasizes accountability at the highest levels of government, particularly within Nigeria’s legislative leadership.
Appeal Court Ruling Against Senate President Akpabio
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Hamman Barka, ruled on the motions on May 21, 2025, awarding the ₦100,000 cost to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the first respondent in the matter. The ruling, which has since been made available as a certified true copy, was confirmed by PUNCH Online on Tuesday night.
- Court Asked to Sack Rivers State Sole Administrator
- Supreme Court Reinstates Senator Samuel Anyanwu as PDP National Secretary
- https://www.thecheernews.com/attorney-general-discontinues-criminal-charges-against-fidelity-bank-ceo-dr-nneka-onyeali-ikpe/
The motions, marked CV/395/M1/2025 and CV/395/M2/2025, were originally filed on March 3 and March 25, 2025, respectively. In both motions, Akpabio sought to appeal a judgment from the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu on March 10, 2025.
Akpabio’s Legal Requests and Grounds of Appeal
Senator Akpabio’s filings included several requests, among them:
- An extension of time to file an appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact.
- Leave to appeal the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which involved a legal dispute between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, and Senator Neda Imasuen, Chair of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.
- A stay of proceedings in the suit pending the outcome of his proposed appeal.
The suit originally addressed matters related to legislative conduct and administrative procedures within the Senate, with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging certain decisions and actions taken within the National Assembly.
Court Grants Withdrawal, Strikes Out Motions
In its ruling, the appellate court noted:
“Application seeking to withdraw the two motions dated and filed on 20/3/2025 and 25/3/2025 is granted and the motions are struck out. Costs of ₦100,000 are awarded to the 1st Respondent. Appeal No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/395M/2025 to be deleted.”
The court did not provide a detailed explanation for the withdrawal but granted the relief sought by Akpabio to discontinue the motions, while also issuing the cost order in favor of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Implications for Senate President Akpabio
This legal setback for the Senate President could raise questions about the viability and direction of his legal strategy. Observers note that withdrawing such motions, after filing for appellate relief, might suggest a reassessment or change in legal tactics. Nonetheless, the ₦100,000 cost imposed by the court represents a symbolic and financial blow, especially in a case already drawing public attention.
The decision also has broader implications for legislative transparency and the responsibilities of high-ranking elected officials in handling judicial matters.
A Background of Political Tension
This case underscores ongoing tensions between key figures in Nigeria’s legislature. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, known for her vocal positions on ethics and reform within the National Assembly, has previously clashed with establishment figures.
Her legal victory, even at this preliminary stage, reinforces her standing and may influence further proceedings in both court and public perception.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision to strike out Akpabio’s motions and impose a cost penalty adds a new dimension to the growing scrutiny around legislative conduct and inter-senatorial disputes in Nigeria. As legal experts continue to follow developments, the ruling could set the tone for future judicial accountability involving top government officials.
