A recent report on proceedings at the Court of Appeal concerning Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been sharply criticized for its speculative nature and factual inaccuracies. The analysis, published by OPR News, allegedly misrepresents the judicial process, creating a misleading narrative of a “major blow” to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and an escalation of the matter to the Supreme Court.
This portrayal, according to legal practitioners, demonstrates a significant departure from objective journalistic standards. The report is accused of failing to accurately identify the appellant, the subject of the appeal, and the specific issues presented before the court. Such fundamental errors suggest either a lack of competence or a deliberate distortion of facts.
Contrary to the claims made in the OPR News report, official records from the Court of Appeal do not indicate that any brief of argument was struck out. The assertion that a brief was dismissed, particularly one belonging to the “Federal Government” (which was not a party to the suit), is reportedly absent from the court’s pronouncements and exists solely within the reporter’s interpretation.
The article also highlights a misunderstanding of appellate court procedures. The Rules of the Court of Appeal allow parties to request permission to exceed prescribed page limits for briefs. If such permission is denied, the standard judicial practice involves directing compliance within a timeframe or granting an adjournment, rather than outright dismissal, especially for a cross-appellant with a valid explanation.
Journalistic accounts should accurately reflect judicial actions, not invent them to suit a particular agenda. The language used in the OPR News report is described as laden with conjecture and partisan interpretation, aiming to create an illusion of victory for one party and defeat for another. Courts operate independently of political influence, and procedural issues are not indicative of substantive setbacks.
Legal observers express concern that the report reads more like a legal submission on behalf of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan than an impartial news piece. The journalist is criticized for assuming the role of the court, announcing non-existent orders and consequences. This approach deviates from responsible reporting, which demands fidelity to facts and respect for judicial processes.
The claim of any significant “blow” to the Senate President’s case is deemed unfounded. There has been no adverse substantive ruling, no striking out of briefs, and no judicial pronouncements to justify the celebratory tone of the OPR News article. Any celebration based on this report is considered premature and built upon misinformation.
Ultimately, the OPR News report is condemned for its inaccuracies, speculative conclusions, and biased perspective. Judicial pronouncements are derived from official records and rulings, not from the interpretations of journalists pursuing personal or political objectives. Responsible journalism requires restraint, factual accuracy, and an understanding of legal proceedings, standards that this report reportedly failed to meet.
