An Abuja-based lawyer, Dayo Fadugba, has faulted the media reports on the cross appeal filed by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, against part of the judgment of the Federal High Court on the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Some sections of the media had reported that Senator Akpabio had approached the Supreme Court over the legal battle arising from the suspension of Kogi Central Senator, Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan.
They said the development followed a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal which struck out the Federal Government’s brief of argument in the appeal linked to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension.
Reacting to the report suggesting Akpabio’s brief of argument was dismissed, Fadugba, in a statement, described it as untrue.
He said that what was refused by the Court of Appeal was a request to exceed the prescribed number of pages for briefs of argument and not the brief of argument itself.
The statement reads: “The referenced jaundiced reportage purporting to analyse proceedings at the Court of Appeal in the matter connected with the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is a glaring example of speculative journalism, factual distortion, and advocacy masquerading as news.
“It is necessary, in the interest of accuracy and the integrity of judicial reporting, to set the record straight.
“The report is gravely flawed in its presentation of the factual posture of the appeal. It falsely suggests that Senate President Godswill Akpabio personally suffered a “major blow” at the Court of Appeal and that he is now “escalating” the matter to the Supreme Court in reaction to that supposed setback.
“This narrative is inaccurate and misleading. The reportage fails to correctly identify who appealed, what was appealed against, and the precise issues before the Court. Such basic errors betray either gross incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation.
“Contrary to the emphatic assertions of the reporter, the official record of proceedings of the Court of Appeal does not state that any brief of argument was struck out. At no point did the court make an order striking out a brief, whether of the “Federal Government” or any other party (the Federal Government was never a party in the suit).
“The assertion that a brief was struck out exists only in the imagination of the reporter and not in the pronouncement of the court. Journalism must report what the court did, not what the journalist wished the court had done.
“The Rules of the Court of Appeal expressly permit a party to seek leave of court to exceed the prescribed number of pages for briefs of argument.
“In this case, leave was indeed sought. Where such leave is refused, the settled and just course is not to shut out the affected party, particularly a cross-appellant with a justifiable explanation, but to: Direct compliance with the page limit within a specified time; or grant an adjournment to enable proper compliance, especially where justice demands hearing all sides on the merits.
“To portray a refusal of leave (assuming one occurred) as a terminal procedural defeat is legally unsound and deliberately deceptive.
“The reporter’s language is laced with conjecture, triumphalism, and partisan interpretation clearly designed to create a false impression of victory for one side and defeat for the other. Courts of law do not deliver judgments to satisfy political paymasters.
“Any report suggesting that a procedural issue amounts to a “major blow” to Senator Godswill Akpabio, GCON, is nothing more than wishful thinking dressed up as news.
“What is most troubling is that the report reads less like an objective account and more like a legal brief prepared on behalf of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The journalist has arrogated to himself the role of the court, announcing orders that were never made and consequences that never arose. This is not reporting; it is advocacy by stealth.
“The insinuation that any “blow” has been dealt to the case of the Senate President is entirely unfounded. There has been no adverse substantive determination against him, no striking out of any brief on record, and no judicial pronouncement capable of justifying the celebratory tone of the report.
“Any rejoicing founded on this article is therefore premature, misplaced, and built on falsehood.
“The report by Opr.news under reference stands condemned by its own inaccuracies, speculative conclusions, and partisan slant.
“Courts speak through their records and rulings, not through the conjectures of journalists pursuing personal or political agendas.
“Responsible journalism demands restraint, fidelity to facts, and respect for judicial processes.”
