NewStats: 3,262,540 , 8,177,421 topics. Date: Monday, 02 June 2025 at 03:58 PM 4p2p4z

CreativeOrbit:
Look, your entire argument is nothing more than emotional gymnastics wrapped in confusion. You think you understand the law just because you heard the word precedent in a Netflix series? Please, step aside. Legal precedent doesn’t mean we should start comparing completely unrelated cases. Reno’s situation is different, Sandra’s is different, and Natasha’s is different. Stop lumping them together like a herbal mixture — it doesn’t work that way.

You’re asking whether I would believe a known liar or a girl with a history of false accusations? My friend, this isn’t street gossip or a backyard drama. This is a formal petition submitted to a public institution. Comparing that to compound rumors shows how flawed your sense of justice truly is.

Now you’re claiming we’re reacting out of political bias? Let me surprise you — I’m more APC than you’ll ever be. While you carry your party hip like a souvenir, I carry integrity. ing APC doesn’t mean I’ll blindly defend disgraceful behavior. If someone within the party is dragging us down, we need to clean house. Otherwise, the opposition will weaponize our silence in 2027. That’s what you fail to understand about real loyalty.

You’ve chosen to be loyal to individuals rather than to the truth — and that’s your undoing. Blind loyalty is what destroys great political parties. You’re not defending the party; you’re enabling rot.

As for your constant ‘show us evidence’ chant — direct that to the men who are hiding behind power and dodging public hearings. If they truly have nothing to hide, let them face the honorably instead of sending errand boys to gaslight Nigerians online.

Regarding your attempt to brand me an Obidient or Atikulator — let me say this clearly: I am APC. But I’m not a zombie. I have the ability to think critically and call out wrongdoing without selling my conscience for crumbs. You, on the other hand, are defending nonsense with more zeal than Atiku’s loudest ers. You’re the one consumed by bitterness — not me.

So yes, go ahead and rest your case — because it holds no weight. Your entire argument is riddled with double standards. Goodbye.

Lol don't say you're more APC than me coz I'm not even a member of any political party and the last time I voted in Nigeria was 2003.
I know the law more than you and I'm telling you that , you can't just accuse someone without any evidence and expect those of us that still have our brain intact to swallow and believe it .she has no evidence that's why she can't file such case in the court yet you guy are still acting as if her accusation is backed by concrete evidence.

You're free to believe her coz we don't think or reason in the same direction. It's just like an agronomist arguing with a SAN about legal matters. Court cases are not judged based on public opinions of by emotions. If e sure for her make she file sexual harassment case against him simple.

Once again beating around the bush, trying to dampen the fact that Sandra did provide evidence compared to you, (who I am begging to suspect to be Natasha herself) who hasn't provided any evidence at all. In fact, just today the court more or less called Natahsa a liar, this one was even about before the new one on Akpabio.

A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, on Tuesday, berated the suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, for wrongful usage of her X-handle (Twitter).

Justice Slyvanius Oriji, delivering the judgement, in a fundamental enforcement rights suit filed by Ali Bello, Chief of Staff to Governor Usman Ododo of Kogi State, against the suspended senator, held that such conduct should not be from a person of her status.

Ali Bello had, on May 21, 2024 instituted the suit, marked: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2024, against Natasha as sole respondent, alleging breach of privacy among others.

When is she going to stop telling lies as a grown up?

I still think 'useful idiots' or 'Gullible and Hungry' are shameful names to be called if you ask me.

CreativeOrbit:
Stop spinning half-truths and dressing them up as if they’re revelations. Let’s dissect your narrative for what it really is: a desperate attempt to protect Sandra by gaslighting everyone else.

You say Natasha "had nothing to present"—do you have receipts for that? Actual communications? Or are we supposed to take Sandra's word as gospel, while dismissing everyone else’s lived experience and documentation? Sounds a lot like selective belief to me.

...
Finally, your attempt to discredit Natasha by repeating a low-blow statement about "useful idiots" and "gullible and hungry" is just cheap. You want to act morally superior while quoting insults? That’s weak. If you want to defend Sandra, fine—bring facts, not fables. Until then, spare us the smug lectures and condescending analogies. We see through the bullshit.

Xpol:
Lol don't say you're more APC than me coz I'm not even a member of any political party and the last time I voted in Nigeria was 2003.
I know the law more than you and I'm telling you that , you can't just accuse someone without any evidence and expect those of us that still have our brain intact to swallow and believe it .she has no evidence that's why she can't file such case in the court yet you guy are still acting as if her accusation is backed by concrete evidence.

You're free to believe her coz we don't think or reason in the same direction. It's just like an agronomist arguing with a SAN about legal matters. Court cases are not judged based on public opinions of by emotions. If e sure for her make she file sexual harassment case against him simple.

Your entire argument is a confused mix of denial, condescension, and half-baked logic. You claim not to belong to any political party—yet you parrot APC talking points like a well-oiled propaganda machine. Save us the fake neutrality; your bias is loud and shameless.

You boast that you “know the law more than me,” yet you fail the most basic standard of legal reasoning. Accusations don’t magically land in court on public demand—especially when the system itself is weaponized to protect the powerful and silence victims. The idea that lack of a court case equals lack of truth is laughably simplistic. Maybe stop pretending to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and start understanding the actual barriers survivors face in seeking justice.

You're so desperate to discredit a woman’s voice that you ignore context, overlook process, and cling to the tired “no evidence” excuse like a lifeline. If you had even a shred of objectivity, you'd know that evidence isn't always presented in public before legal filings—and certainly not to appease social media gatekeepers like you.

Your agronomist vs. SAN analogy is cute, but let’s be honest: you're neither. You’re just another self-appointed expert yelling from the sidelines, pretending to understand legal nuance while exposing your own ignorance in broad daylight.

If it “sure for you,” stop acting like a glorified echo chamber and wait for the process—because unlike you, some of us deal in facts, not fragile egos and faux expertise.

9jatriot:
Once again beating around the bush, trying to dampen the fact that Sandra did provide evidence compared to you, (who I am begging to suspect to be Natasha herself) who hasn't provided any evidence at all. In fact, just today the court more or less called Natahsa a liar, this one was even about before the new one on Akpabio.



When is she going to stop telling lies as a grown up?

I still think 'useful idiots' or 'Gullible and Hungry' are shameful names to be called if you ask me.

Your desperate need to spin fiction as fact is as loud as it is laughable. Sandra allegedly presented evidence? Let’s not mistake propaganda for proof. Unlike you, some of us actually understand the difference between media noise and judicial outcomes.

You claim the court “more or less called Natasha a liar”? That’s a bold lie in itself—and a pathetic one at that. Read the judgment, if you even can. There was no adverse finding against Senator Natasha Akpoti, no award of costs, and certainly no declaration of dishonesty. The court ruled for each party to bear their own costs, which is a far cry from the damning verdict you fantasize about.

Your suspicion that I am Natasha herself is as baseless as your argument—grasping at straws because you can't counter the facts. What exactly have you provided here besides empty rhetoric and juvenile name-calling?

If anyone here fits the label of "gullible and hungry," it's those like you—clinging to distorted narratives and feeding on misinformation just to score cheap points. Grow up and come back when you can argue with facts instead of froth.

CreativeOrbit:
Your entire argument is a confused mix of denial, condescension, and half-baked logic. You claim not to belong to any political party—yet you parrot APC talking points like a well-oiled propaganda machine. Save us the fake neutrality; your bias is loud and shameless.

You boast that you “know the law more than me,” yet you fail the most basic standard of legal reasoning. Accusations don’t magically land in court on public demand—especially when the system itself is weaponized to protect the powerful and silence victims. The idea that lack of a court case equals lack of truth is laughably simplistic. Maybe stop pretending to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and start understanding the actual barriers survivors face in seeking justice.

You're so desperate to discredit a woman’s voice that you ignore context, overlook process, and cling to the tired “no evidence” excuse like a lifeline. If you had even a shred of objectivity, you'd know that evidence isn't always presented in public before legal filings—and certainly not to appease social media gatekeepers like you.

Your agronomist vs. SAN analogy is cute, but let’s be honest: you're neither. You’re just another self-appointed expert yelling from the sidelines, pretending to understand legal nuance while exposing your own ignorance in broad daylight.

If it “sure for you,” stop acting like a glorified echo chamber and wait for the process—because unlike you, some of us deal in facts, not fragile egos and faux expertise.

Lol, all I can see in your write-up na painment. Lol. You better free your mind and stop taking politicians matter this serious. Self denial you said? I've not even entered Nigeria since the formation of APC. Ok let me stop denying it so that you can free your mind with that heavy Budden you're carrying. I'm the national chairman of APC. Lol. Are you happy now.

Whether you like it or not Natasha has no sexual harassment case against Akpabio. If she does do you think she would leave it and be filing contempt case? Lol I can feel your pain , you wish she has evidence but "if e no dey e no fit dey" take heart ok.

I don't use to exchange argument up to this level but make I press your neck small.

If you are not Natasha herself, then you definately qualify as one of her 'UI' and 'G&H'. Just see how hard you are trying to turn logic on its head.

Sandra provided evidences to her claim, how else do you think people like us that do not qualify as 'UI' and 'G&H' are even giving her audience at all. You can only argue if the evidences are sufficient or not but to claim she just made blanket accusations, is to tell blatant lies, which is why I suspect you to be NT herself.

NT on the other hand has not provided any evidence at all either in the court of law, Senate disciplinary committee or on social media where she was initially trying to dominate the airwave. For you not to know that puts you at one of her ranking 'UI' and 'G&H'.

Now to the judgement, your interpretation sounds like "the court agreed that she lied but they did not award damages to the plaintiff". This level of thinking is frightening.

Anyway, NT has met her match in Sandra, you and her can dig it out.

What I do know is that after all these grandstanding, a back channel will be opened by your team to seek a peaceful resolution.

CreativeOrbit:
Your desperate need to spin fiction as fact is as loud as it is laughable. Sandra allegedly presented evidence? Let’s not mistake propaganda for proof. Unlike you, some of us actually understand the difference between media noise and judicial outcomes.

You claim the court “more or less called Natasha a liar”? That’s a bold lie in itself—and a pathetic one at that. Read the judgment, if you even can. There was no adverse finding against Senator Natasha Akpoti, no award of costs, and certainly no declaration of dishonesty. The court ruled for each party to bear their own costs, which is a far cry from the damning verdict you fantasize about.

Your suspicion that I am Natasha herself is as baseless as your argument—grasping at straws because you can't counter the facts. What exactly have you provided here besides empty rhetoric and juvenile name-calling?

If anyone here fits the label of "gullible and hungry," it's those like you—clinging to distorted narratives and feeding on misinformation just to score cheap points. Grow up and come back when you can argue with facts instead of froth.

Bad damage control. Everybody wan cash out