NewStats: 3,261,642 , 8,174,612 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 09:45 PM 3465g

Ok from olisa to Akiwulusike then next amaka then next nwaneri, yhen next chijioke then next chidiebere.

No wahala it doesn't matter what matters is we are not going to remove Akpabio and that is our resolution if una ike bring 1,000 liars to say whatever we don't care, Senate president is for the SS and its Akpabio so nothing dey shele

JetApartment:


Don't mind emkz and his fellow illiterates, They don't know Natasha is a Lawyer that knows the implications of lying under oath...they keep masturbating for evidence when the case is already in court...bunch of educated illiterates.

...and most of dem na graduates ooo.

I am pleased that my comments hurt you to your marrow.

counter attack.
these people are the dregs we don't want to hear about

89green:
Nobody should come to my door in 2027 and start shouting get your voter's card. I will curse you live and direct.

If you come and campaign for any politicians, I will double curse you

How will this help or hinder the worst politicians from emerging from among us in 2027 as state legislators and governors, as representatives, senators and president?

anonimi:
“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events.

He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics.

The slowpoke doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.”

― Bertolt Brecht

Jubrilv:
we are getting there gradually

But let Senator Natasha or Senator Akpabio go ahead with court process for us to know who is fooling who

Court case? To let you know who is fooling who?

For this obodo naija?

In Baba Fela's voice: " You must dey comu frome London,
You must comu from ...

Smh

Sandra Duru, the self acclaimed "Defender of due process and integrity" now found to be brazen liar like the brazen serpent...

anonimi:


How will this help or hinder the worst politicians from emerging from among us in 2027 as state legislators and governors, as representatives, senators and president?

How has it hindered them from emerging in the past

Keep on wasting your data on these clowns and politicians.

2 can play

ClearFlair:
Why is integrity so far from anything close to APC?


No wonder they are envious of Peter Obi

Envious of Obi because he is the president or what? Oga try to dey think before you type here. Obi prayer point is Tinubu dust bin.

Anyhow wey una turn am, Lietasha is a fraud!!!

emkz:
Some people, especially Dramatasha's Nairaland G and H defenders, discredit the audio made by Natasha but believe the audio released by Obinna purportedly made by Sandra.

Natasha ed Sandra to help in blackmailing Akpabio. Sandra initially backed Natasha and bashed Akpabio. I suspect there was a disagreement about payment and contract. Sandra moved against Natasha and backed Akpabio. Obinna and one woman were recruited by Sandra to do voice over in a documentary based on a text released to them by Sandra. It seems they did a shoddy job and Sandra requested reimbursement. Losing funds, they moved against Sandra to appeal to Natasha so she can pay.

There is hunger in the land and everyone wants to cash out from this scandal. There are four of such on Nairaland.

What is escalating the problem is disagreement over money. These fights will not end.

We ask Natasha to prove her allegations or apologize for the falsehood she peddled to blackmail Nigerians. With her precedence of fabricating these accusations, she owes the nation evidence or an apology.

She didn't blackmail us. She brought forth an allegation against a randy Senate president. Don't say Nigerians. Speak for yourself.

WOW

All these Balablue ,bulabae are meaningless. The point is where is the evidence ?
Natasha should please provide them so that Nigerians will rest.

9jatriot:
Natasha is just clutching at straws.

The previous Fransicsca girl and this new one (Akuwudike) are saying the same thing, they were/ are to be paid to do narrations in a documentary styled video.

They are not paid to fabricate evidence. I wonder why they are trying so hard to make it look like they are paid to fabricate new evidences against Natasha?

The way most documentaries are run is that, there is a narrator, who tries to explain the content of a video, the same way youtubers do voice overs explaining a concept.

This one accusing Sandra has not mentioned that she/he was asked to fabricate anything against Natasha, but that they should do a voice over over a series of video which will serve as evidences in the documentary.

Your attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation by claiming Natasha is “clutching at straws” is both misleading and dismissive. You conveniently frame the issue as a simple case of narration for a documentary, ignoring the broader implications and intent behind the so-called “narration.”

Let’s be clear: the concern isn’t just about voicing over videos—it’s about the manipulation of narrative to push a particular agenda. When individuals come forward saying they were approached or instructed to narrate content in a way that suggests criminality or guilt — without factual basis — it becomes a matter of deliberate misrepresentation, not innocent documentary work.

You argue that they weren't “paid to fabricate evidence,” but if the material being narrated is selectively edited or falsely contextualized to mislead the public, that in itself is fabrication—regardless of whether the narrators were explicitly told to lie.

Your oversimplification of how documentaries work ignores a key principle: ethical storytelling. If these narrators were being used to falsely imply guilt or reinforce a narrative not grounded in truth, then this is not a neutral act—it’s propaganda masquerading as journalism.

This isn’t about someone being “paid to read a script”—it’s about the intent and impact behind that script. And dismissing these concerns under the guise of standard practice is intellectually dishonest.

Xpol:
Smile. If you're a thief and another thief stole your belongings I no fit pity you.

If blackmailer is blackmailed. It's a joyful thing.

There is a saying that, if you find joy in tarnishing people's image by the time you stop doing that your own image will be brutally damaged.

Natasha allegations is not real and have no evidence. There are some truths in Sandra's coz Natasha first deny knowing or having any conversation with her and that lie was busted.

As someone with functioning brain I Know Sandra will surely sugarcoat and add flavour to her allegations but what I'm happy about is that Natasha meets her match.

For those of you who always anything that's against your perceived enemies, keep it up you'll reap the fruit someday.

Taking Reno own as an example if it were recently she accused Reno, you guy would her and claimed Reno evidence was fabricated, that he really did it and started calling him names.

Your entire take reeks of bias and selective outrage. First, don’t pretend to care about evidence when your argument is built on hearsay and emotional favoritism. You claim Natasha’s allegations have no proof, yet somehow Sandra's "half-truths" are valid just because Natasha initially denied knowing her? That's a weak stretch at best — people deny associations all the time, especially when dealing with manipulators. That doesn't make Sandra right; it just makes your logic lazy.

And let’s talk about this nonsense of her "meeting her match" — if by match you mean someone who spews contradictory stories laced with personal vendettas, congratulations. You’re celebrating chaos, not justice.

As for your jab at people "ing anything against their perceived enemies" — that’s exactly what you’re doing now, blindly cheering Sandra on just because it fits your grudge. Hypocrisy much?

Dragging Reno into this is desperate. Every case should be judged individually, not based on your warped hypotheticals. You’re not fighting for truth; you’re fighting for a narrative that suits your petty bias. Try harder.

Azazyel:




She didn't blackmail us. She brought forth an allegation against a randy Senate president. Don't say Nigerians. Speak for yourself.

She said she was suspended for being a woman and refusing sexual advances.

Was that the case?

Answer intelligently or you can honourably keep silent.

TallNigerian:
Lietasha is working overtime to save face. LOL

You mean Akpabio is busy paying Women of Igbo extraction to ridicule his enemy number one -Natasha ??

Mr. Emkz, are you seriously expecting anyone to take that paranoid, conspiracy-laced monologue as a credible argument? You toss around claims with zero proof, then wrap it up in baseless suspicion and expect applause?

You say Natasha ed Sandra to blackmail Akpabio — where’s the proof? A WhatsApp chat? A voice note? Or are we just supposed to trust your imagination because you speak with confidence? Since when did “I suspect” become the gold standard for truth?

And let’s talk about this so-called documentary. Are we really supposed to believe Sandra, the alleged mastermind, recruited people, handed them scripts, funded the production — and then it all fell apart because of hunger? Is this investigative insight or a failed movie plot?

If “hunger in the land” is your explanation for everything, then should we also assume your entire theory is fueled by your own hunger for attention?

You mock people for believing Natasha’s audio, but why should anyone believe the conveniently timed, cherry-picked audio coming from Sandra’s camp? Or does credibility only matter when it suits your bias?

You demand Natasha prove her claims or apologize — but where is your proof? Or are apologies only demanded from those you already hate?

Until you bring facts and not just emotionally-charged fables, your argument isn’t a challenge — it’s just loud background noise trying desperately to be relevant.
#emkz

2mch:
Natasha, bring your proof now. What happened to court case against Akpabio? Dem suppose put you for Yaba left.

Some of you are ignorant of this matter. No wonder this natasha is always one step ahead of you guys. For your information natasha has gone to court to challenge her unjust suspension . Recall akpabio accused the first judge in charge of the case of biase ..it was reassigned to nyako. In court today he challenged the jurisdiction of the court in interfering with senate matter ... He wants the case to be struck out fir lack of jurisdiction...This is a technical ground. He forgot that the law doesn't give him.power to undermine the fundamental human right of others . If the Senate rules says people that breaks it will go for 14days ...giving such a person 6months is illegal..and chalkengeable in court...May be the court wouldn't have interfered if he did the right and just thing . Impunity had no place in our laws.

Natasha has down the right thing by replying the sexual harassment to the Senate..is now left for the Senate to do the needful by investigating the matter...what did they do? The high handedness of the leadership of the Senate refused to look into it ...Mr president in his wisdom decided to set up a to look into the matter ...but akpabio chickened out ...claiming that the executive has no power to surmon him ...it amount to interference in the legislative organ of the government ....Tell me which country can accept this impunity . He forgot that he had disrespected Mr president over this matter ....He took solace in hiring Sandra duru...a notorious blackmail to tarnish natashas image ...

greggng:



Some of you are ignorant of this matter. No wonder this natasha is always one step ahead of you guys. For your information natasha has gone to court to challenge her unjust suspension . Recall akpabio accused the first judge in charge of the case of biase ..it was reassigned to nyako. In court today he challenged the jurisdiction of the court in interfering with senate matter ... He wants the case to be struck out fir lack of jurisdiction...This is a technical ground. He forgot that the law doesn't give him.power to undermine the fundamental human right of others . If the Senate rules says people that breaks it will go for 14days ...giving such a person 6months is illegal..and chalkengeable in court...May be the court wouldn't have interfered if he did the right and just thing . Impunity had no place in our laws.

Natasha has down the right thing by replying the sexual harassment to the Senate..is now left for the Senate to do the needful by investigating the matter...what did they do? The high handedness of the leadership of the Senate refused to look into it ...Mr president in his wisdom decided to set up a to look into the matter ...but akpabio chickened out ...claiming that the executive has no power to surmon him ...it amount to interference in the legislative organ of the government ....Tell me which country can accept this impunity . He forgot that he had disrespected Mr president over this matter ....He took solace in hiring Sandra duru...a notorious blackmail to tarnish natashas image ...

Natasha, we need proof o.

https://medium.com/@zolveit/these-10-websites-will-pay-you-100-3000-per-blog-post-and-you-dont-need-to-be-famous-ed0c1a00721d

CreativeOrbit:
Your entire take reeks of bias and selective outrage. First, don’t pretend to care about evidence when your argument is built on hearsay and emotional favoritism. You claim Natasha’s allegations have no proof, yet somehow Sandra's "half-truths" are valid just because Natasha initially denied knowing her? That's a weak stretch at best — people deny associations all the time, especially when dealing with manipulators. That doesn't make Sandra right; it just makes your logic lazy.

And let’s talk about this nonsense of her "meeting her match" — if by match you mean someone who spews contradictory stories laced with personal vendettas, congratulations. You’re celebrating chaos, not justice.

As for your jab at people "ing anything against their perceived enemies" — that’s exactly what you’re doing now, blindly cheering Sandra on just because it fits your grudge. Hypocrisy much?

Dragging Reno into this is desperate. Every case should be judged individually, not based on your warped hypotheticals. You’re not fighting for truth; you’re fighting for a narrative that suits your petty bias. Try harder.

Even in the court of law every case is not judged individually. Precedence are always set. So Reno own is one of the precedence Natasha has set, Yaya Bello own is one of them, etc.

If a girl in your street known to be falsely accusing guys of rap* accuse your friend of raping her, will you believe her?

If a friend of yours who always lie of sleeping with every girl around tells you he had slept with your gf will you believe him and sack your gf?

Someone accused another person of sexual harassment without evidence and you guys started calling for his head. If he were to be your preferred presidential candidate would you have done the same thing?

I'm not being biased here even if it were to be in the Court, she would be asked to produce evidence else no case. At least Sandra provided some evidence and still claiming of having more in stock. So tell your Natasha to provide even just one evidence.

Is either you're an obidient or Atikulator. So I can't convince you to change the bitterness towards APC it's better I rest my case. I will only advise you not to be judging case base on party affiliation. Bye.

2mch:

Natasha, we need proof o.

Go to court if you need prove ...natasha is already in court to challenge her suspension ...let's finish with this one first ...then your client can now go to court to sue natasha for accusing him of sexual harassment ...that is the sequence...this is how things is done in saner countries ...she cannot be giving evidence over a sexual harassment matter that is not yet in court. That's a distraction

LET ME BORROW THE WORDS OF BUHARI "CORRUPTION IS FIGHTING BACK"

emkz:


She said she was suspended for being a woman and refusing sexual advances.

Was that the case?

Answer intelligently or you can honourably keep silent.

Of course we know Akpabio is a randy man who has been on her case for a while. As a man, you should learn to keep your gbola in your pants to save yourself from embarrassment cos women would always be women. She go expose you without thinking twice anytime she feels threatened. Akpabio wanted to reprimand her for what she did at the Senate house but she started leaking private matters as a woman that she is. Akpabio ain't innocent. You don't know him. Trust me, I have seen his doings when he was governor. He once fondled the boobs of a female student I know in Akwa ibom and gave her 1million naira. That man did a lot in Akwa ibom then. You see these out politicians ehn, they are really wasting our tax money. Don't kill yourself over any of them. Just sit back and enjoy the drama.

Xpol:
Even in the court of law every case is not judged individually. Precedence are always set. So Reno own is one of the precedence Natasha has set, Yaya Bello own is one of them, etc.

If a girl in your street known to be falsely accusing guys of rap* accuse your friend of raping her, will you believe her?

If a friend of yours who always lie of sleeping with every girl around tells you he had slept with your gf will you believe him and sack your gf?

Someone accused another person of sexual harassment without evidence and you guys started calling for his head. If he were to be your preferred presidential candidate would you have done the same thing?

I'm not being biased here even if it were to be in the Court, she would be asked to produce evidence else no case. At least Sandra provided some evidence and still claiming of having more in stock. So tell your Natasha to provide even just one evidence.

Is either you're an obidient or Atikulator. So I can't convince you to change the bitterness towards APC it's better I rest my case. I will only advise you not to be judging case base on party affiliation. Bye.

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.

Azazyel:




Of course we know Akpabio is a randy man who has been on her case for a while. As a man, you should learn to keep your gbola in your pants to save yourself from embarrassment cos women would always be women. She go expose you without thinking twice anytime she feels threatened. Akpabio wanted to reprimand her for what she did at the Senate house but she started leaking private matters as a woman that she is. Akpabio ain't innocent. You don't know him. Trust me, I have seen his doings when he was governor. He once fondled the boobs of a female student I know in Akwa ibom and gave her 1million naira. That man did a lot in Akwa ibom then. You see these out politicians ehn, they are really wasting our tax money. Don't kill yourself over any of them. Just sit back and enjoy the drama.

Perhaps you did not fully read or you might nit have understood the question asked. So I'd ask it again:

emkz:


She said she was suspended for being a woman and refusing sexual advances.

Was that the case?

Answer intelligently or you can honourably keep silent.

I don't care about Akpabio or Natasha. You have said Akpabio is guilty based on his antecedents. Is there not also the possibility that Natasha might be promoting falsehood based on past accusations she had peddled that turned out to be false?

Learn to be fair and just so that you would also be treated with justice and fairness.

emkz:


Perhaps you did not fully read or you might nit have understood the question asked. So I'd ask it again:


I don't care about Akpabio or Natasha. You have said Akpabio is guilty based on his antecedents. Is there not also the possibility that Natasha might be promoting falsehood based on past accusations she had peddled that turned out to be false?

Learn to be fair and just so that you would also be treated with justice and fairness.

You're clearly ing Akpabio. She's not lying as far as I'm concerned. His track records speak already. Even his fellow Akwa ibom people at my workplace know that he is guilty of it.

This is exactly what the contract with the 2 folks who have so far come forward are about. As a matter of fact, the first person that wanted to use this method was Natasha herself when she tried to contract Sandra.

To produce documentaries like that, you talk people through a journey to sell a narrative, so 2 people can produce a documentary and try to push completely different narratives that puts them in a good light.

Let us use football for example using a player like Suarez, the former barca and liverpool player. One person can decide to make Suarez look really bad and in his documentary only emphasize how he goes around bitting people on the pitch, catching goal bound balls and stuffs like that. And he will provide proofs for it, because they all really happened.

Another person who wants to present him in good light can opt to sell the narrative that he is a prolific striker with a very good goals per games ratio. And once again there are proofs for it.

From what Sandra has shown so far, it was when she requested for proof from Natasha to use in the documentary Natasha was asking her to produce that Natasha told her she had nothing to really present and even suggested that Sandra lies by bring in a completely new allegation about one Inioren who died a few years ago. Without ing proof, it is no longer a documentary, apparently that is where she and Natasha fell out. Sandra also claimed that Natasha refused to sign a contractual agreement. I do not know the of that agreement, but if you are going to produce a documentary with such heavy implications, it is only natural that you indemify yourself by ensuring all liabilities goes to the person who you are workinig for, of course Natasha refused to sign.

Now back to these people accusing Sandra, I have read both submissions, at no time did they mention that they were asked to inject or falsify new evidences into the documentary, all they were asked to do was produce with the materials and proofs they were given. Olisa actually did her own documentary but from the chat proof presented, problems started when the documentary did not meet the acceptance criteria and a refund was requested.

Bottomline, they should stop trying to make it look like they were asked to falsify new info. We now know that Natasha considers her ers as either useful idiots or Gullible and Hungry, shameful names to be called if you ask me.

CreativeOrbit:
Your attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation by claiming Natasha is “clutching at straws” is both misleading and dismissive. You conveniently frame the issue as a simple case of narration for a documentary, ignoring the broader implications and intent behind the so-called “narration.”

Let’s be clear: the concern isn’t just about voicing over videos—it’s about the manipulation of narrative to push a particular agenda. When individuals come forward saying they were approached or instructed to narrate content in a way that suggests criminality or guilt — without factual basis — it becomes a matter of deliberate misrepresentation, not innocent documentary work.

You argue that they weren't “paid to fabricate evidence,” but if the material being narrated is selectively edited or falsely contextualized to mislead the public, that in itself is fabrication—regardless of whether the narrators were explicitly told to lie.

Your oversimplification of how documentaries work ignores a key principle: ethical storytelling. If these narrators were being used to falsely imply guilt or reinforce a narrative not grounded in truth, then this is not a neutral act—it’s propaganda masquerading as journalism.

This isn’t about someone being “paid to read a script”—it’s about the intent and impact behind that script. And dismissing these concerns under the guise of standard practice is intellectually dishonest .

9jatriot:
This is exactly what the contract with the 2 folks who have so far come forward are about. As a matter of fact, the first person that wanted to use this method was Natasha herself when she tried to contract Sandra.

To produce documentaries like that, you talk people through a journey to sell a narrative, so 2 people can produce a documentary and try to push completely different narratives that puts them in a good light.

Let us use football for example using a player like Suarez, the former barca and liverpool player. One person can decide to make Suarez look really bad and in his documentary only emphasize how he goes around bitting people on the pitch, catching goal bound balls and stuffs like that. And he will provide proofs for it, because they all really happened.

Another person who wants to present him in good light can opt to sell the narrative that he is a prolific striker with a very good goals per games ratio. And once again there are proofs for it.

From what Sandra has shown so far, it was when she requested for proof from Natasha to use in the documentary Natasha was asking her to produce that Natasha told her she had nothing to really present and even suggested that Sandra lies by bring in a completely new allegation about one Inioren who died a few years ago. Without ing proof, it is no longer a documentary, apparently that is where she and Natasha fell out. Sandra also claimed that Natasha refused to sign a contractual agreement. I do not know the of that agreement, but if you are going to produce a documentary with such heavy implications, it is only natural that you indemify yourself by ensuring all liabilities goes to the person who you are workinig for, of course Natasha refused to sign.

Now back to these people accusing Sandra, I have read both submissions, at no time did they mention that they were asked to inject or falsify new evidences into the documentary, all they were asked to do was produce with the materials and proofs they were given. Olisa actually did her own documentary but from the chat proof presented, problems started when the documentary did not meet the acceptance criteria and a refund was requested.

Bottomline, they should stop trying to make it look like they were asked to falsify new info. We now know that Natasha considers her ers as either useful idiots or Gullible and Hungry, shameful names to be called if you ask me.

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.

First, your analogy with Suarez is laughably shallow. A documentary isn’t about picking a flattering or damning narrative—it’s about truth, backed by credible evidence and ethical standards. You make it sound like it’s acceptable for a producer to ignore integrity and just pick whichever version makes them or their subject look better. That’s not storytelling—it’s manipulation.

Now, about Natasha and Sandra. Your version of events conveniently hinges on unverified claims allegedly made by Sandra, someone whose conduct is already under scrutiny. If Sandra was truly operating professionally, she’d have documented all communications and issues from the start—especially when she knew a project involved heavy implications. Instead, she failed to secure agreements, failed to deliver satisfactory work, and is now hiding behind vague excuses while her defenders try to bury the real issue: incompetence and lack of ethics.

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.

As for the others who have come forward, stop twisting their words. No one is stupid enough to claim they were directly told to falsify evidence word-for-word. The issue is insinuation, direction, manipulation of narrative and omission—all of which are equally damning when it comes to credibility. When you work on a documentary, the integrity of that work rests on not just what’s said, but also what’s left out, and Sandra has a track record of playing both ends against the middle.

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.