₦airaland Forum

Wallade:
Yes, the Senate belongs to the people, senators are elected by people of various constituencies to represent them in the Senate. However, those senators are expected to represent the people in the legislation business for the growth and development of the various people, they are expected to be sane, honourable, honest and matured. They are expected to focus on the legislation job rather than trivial issues and social media drama.

Your senator Natasha Apoti seems to be psychologically challenged already.
She is obviously dishonorable especially because she is so rude and dismissive of her colleagues and disrespectful to the Senate as an institution.
She embarrassed the Senate at the IPU of the UN with misinformation, callous, mischievous and despicable allegations.
Senator Natasha Apoti is a serial liar, the evidences are all over the social media. She is very immature as a person, she is always throwing tantrums like a child, on social media, in the plenary and all over. She is chaotic, unruly and disruptive.

Please note that the Senate has rules and regulations that guides the activities and conduct of every member in the Senate especially during plenary and if a senator violates or goes contrary to the rules and regulations, there must and will be punishment. If you can't respect the rules and regulations of your community or association, then you should not be there, you might as well take a leave.

Besides, which of the leaders in Nigeria is afraid of Natasha Apoti? I can't see any. They have all seen through her charades and shenanigans. She lacks the carriage and charisma of a true leader. She lacks decency and she is dishonorable.

She will resume her constitutional duties when she obeys simple instruction as expected from every other members of the Senate. They unanimously and collectively requested her to apologize for her disruptive, unruly, disorderly and disrespectful behavior in the Senate on that day. If she can't simply and respectfully apologize to the Senate and her colleagues, then she will be further punished and sink into oblivion. The Senate is an esteemed institution that has been existing before her and will exist in the forseable future, it is going concern that will outlive Senator Natasha Apoti. The Senate has rules and regulations that will not be bent for her or any other senator that will be so disruptive, disrespectful, unruly and exhibit such misconduct.

The Senate is not a place to silent dissenting views or bold voices. It is a place that accommodates bold voices of reason, sound minds on th core business of legislation and dissenting views with conscience and national interest purpose.

What national interest does Natasha Apoti's lies, disruption, disorderly, misinformation, cantankerous and disrespectful conduct serve?

What is the reason for a foul mouthed lady to voice out opposition against change of seat, that is a normal exercise in the Senate, to the extent that she would insult the presiding officers, disrupt the activities in the Senate, become unruly and then come up with mischievous, unproven and damning sexual harassment allegations like she did with Reno Omokri and others in past, just to get at them.

We know your Senator Natasha Apoti's stock in trade already; her tactics have been made already.

The law is on the side of the Senate, in other words the collective people of Nigeria, not on the side of Senator Natasha Apoti.
She is a liar, malicious and damaged character. We have had enough of her drama and tantrums. The Senate is not for activism and disruptors. The Senate is for diplomatic, developmental and team workers who find a way to get their colleagues to understand, accept and propagate agendas inspired by them to the benefit of their various constituencies. If you lack such skills and you are unwilling to learn, you should not be in the Senate.

Please advice senator Natasha Apoti that if she needs a career in Nollywood, it is not too late. It seems to be the suitable industry for her.

Your long emotional rant is a perfect example of how truth threatens the powerful. Senator Natasha Akpoti is not in the Senate to massage egos or conform to a toxic culture of silence. She was elected to speak boldly — and that’s exactly what she’s done.

The real embarrassment isn’t Natasha; it’s a Senate that suspends members illegally and fears strong, independent voices, especially women. The Federal High Court ruled her suspension unconstitutional. She is not above Senate rules, but neither is the Senate above the Constitution.

The desperate attacks on her character only prove how deeply her refusal to bow to intimidation unsettles your political idols. If it takes boldness, resilience, and fearless truth-telling to clean out the rot in the system, then Natasha is exactly where she belongs.

She represents the future — and no amount of propaganda can erase a lawful mandate or an unstoppable voice.

Wallade:
What is the illegality? Can you tell us how the Senate has acted illegally?

The misleading and misinformation you, Natasha Apoti and her associates have been spreading can't fool everyone.

I am one of the eagle eyed ones that sees through her schemes and shenanigans.

The illegality is not a matter of opinion — it’s a matter of judicial fact. The Federal High Court ruled that Senator Natasha Akpoti's suspension was unconstitutional, unlawful, and a violation of her fundamental rights as an elected representative. That ruling alone exposes the Senate leadership’s actions under Akpabio as an abuse of legislative power.

What’s truly misleading is how you and others twist facts to defend political intimidation. The Senate is not a military barracks where members are punished for asking questions. It is a democratic institution — yet under this current leadership, it punishes dissent, suppresses bold voices, and selectively enforces rules.

If you claim to be "eagle-eyed," then stop overlooking the truth: Natasha stood her ground because she was elected to serve the people, not to please power-hungry figures who think the red chamber is their personal empire.

aylipple:
Again, no! She was already suspended from the Senate, say one? She went to court to contest the Senate's powers to suspend her, say two? Court rules: she should apologise for contempt of court for her satirical FB post and publicize the apology in one or two national dailies & then the court also declared that the suspension of the Senator for 6months may have been too harsh. Sen. Natasha appeals the part of the Court's decision on her apologizing, say three?

Now, compare this to a governor who's already on seat, say one? His opponent goes to the tribunal and obtains a favourable ruling sacking the governor, say two? Sitting governor appeals ruling, say three?

Notice the difference? In case you didn't, let me spell it out for you: in first scenario, notice that the Senator was already suspended (ejected, so to say) and was no longer a "sitting Senator" for at least 6months before she went to court? In the other scenario, notice that the governor is on seat? So, he can't be removed until all appeals have been exhausted same with Sen. Natasha: she can't be reinstated until all appeals have been exhausted so, it's still a long journey to getting back into the Senate for her.

That's why some of her reasonable colleagues like Sen. Seriake Dickson are advocating a political solution but would ego & youthful exuberance allow the suspended Senator see reason with this practical solution? She might just end up being in court (Appeal then Supreme) till the end of this current National Assembly in 2027 and by then, the aim of those who suspended her in the first place would've been fulfilled.

The Senate does not have such rights to suspend her

CreativeOrbit:
The illegality is not a matter of opinion — it’s a matter of judicial fact. The Federal High Court ruled that Senator Natasha Akpoti's suspension was unconstitutional, unlawful, and a violation of her fundamental rights as an elected representative. That ruling alone exposes the Senate leadership’s actions under Akpabio as an abuse of legislative power.

What’s truly misleading is how you and others twist facts to defend political intimidation. The Senate is not a military barracks where members are punished for asking questions. It is a democratic institution — yet under this current leadership, it punishes dissent, suppresses bold voices, and selectively enforces rules.

If you claim to be "eagle-eyed," then stop overlooking the truth: Natasha stood her ground because she was elected to serve the people, not to please power-hungry figures who think the red chamber is their personal empire.

What do you understand as fact?

With respect to your statement that I made bold: can you quote from the judgement CTC copy to emphasize your statement?

The same court judgement affirmed the powers of the Senate as enshrined in the Rules and Regulations of the Senate, to punish senators who go contrary to the rules.

The same court judgement affirmed that Senator Natasha Apoti violated the rule and regulations on that said date on her change of seat matter and the judgement affirmed that she went contrary to the rules and regulations.

The powers of the Senate has been wielded against a disorderly, disruptive and unruly senator. You can interpret it to be whatever you wish: "punishes dissent, suppresses bold voices, and selectively enforces rules."

The truth has been spoken and pointed to you several times but you have chosen to believe the lies. We are not as gullible as you are.

peleson1:
The Senate does not have such rights to suspend her

Ok. Just so you know, they did and when the matter went before Justice Binta Nyako of the FHC, Abuja, she didn't rule or declare that the Senate lacks the powers to discipline its members as it deems fit, she only stated that the "punishment" in this case, 6 months suspension, may have been to harsh considering the implications for her constituents who will be denied representation in the upper chamber of the National Assembly for that duration of time.

Meanwhile, do you mind just for the sake of deepening knowledge, share your view on how the Senate and indeed the legislative arm is supposed to place its "erring" members in check aside suspension from legislative duties? I'll really like to know your thoughts.

CreativeOrbit:
Your long emotional rant is a perfect example of how truth threatens the powerful. Senator Natasha Akpoti is not in the Senate to massage egos or conform to a toxic culture of silence. She was elected to speak boldly — and that’s exactly what she’s done.

The real embarrassment isn’t Natasha; it’s a Senate that suspends members illegally and fears strong, independent voices, especially women. The Federal High Court ruled her suspension unconstitutional. She is not above Senate rules, but neither is the Senate above the Constitution.

The desperate attacks on her character only prove how deeply her refusal to bow to intimidation unsettles your political idols. If it takes boldness, resilience, and fearless truth-telling to clean out the rot in the system, then Natasha is exactly where she belongs.

She represents the future — and no amount of propaganda can erase a lawful mandate or an unstoppable voice.

When Senator Natasha Apoti wants to speak boldly, she has to speak boldly with reason and respect for constituted authorities. She has to speak boldly from her allocated seat equipped with microphones and other communication gadgets to amplify her bold voice. She has to speak boldly upholding the rules and regulations of the Senate. We are not all lawless and disorderly, in fact she doesn't have to be disorderly, unruly and disruptive for Senator Natasha's voice to be heard.

Again and I emphasize, the power of the Senate to punish, including suspend, any member or senator that violates or goes contrary to the rules and regulations of the Senate was confirmed, affirmed and stated in the judgment - see the certified true copy of the Judgement as printed, signed and released by the court.

The Constitution guarantees every Nigerian free movement within Nigeria but definitely not into the territory or household or estate of another person. That is a typical example to explain what you and senator Natasha Apoti want to push. Senator Natasha Apoti has right and freedom to speak, as enshrined in the Constitution of the FRN but when she is in the Senate as a senator, staff or visitor, she must comply with the rules and regulations of the Senate in her effort to speak or perform her duties otherwise she or any senator will be called to order or punished.

No one is intimidating her, it takes boldness, resilience, and fearless truth-telling to obey simple rules and regulations - you can tell that to Natasha Apoti.

Mind you, she may represent your future, she does not represent the totality or majority of our future. She is a bad example to true feminism and what a woman stands for. Tell her to ask Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, Amina Mohammed, Bisi Adeleye-Fayemi and other respectable women about being exemplary women that the future generations of women can emulate especially with respect to relationship management, diplomacy and communication in government institutions. Some of these women are still alive so she can enrol to learn from them.

Disruptive, disorderly, unruly, abusive, misinformation, malicious and dishonesty are not attributes of we want to imbibe in our future generations. No! Natasha Apoti Uduaghan does not represent our future. Speak for yourself only.

Wallade:
What do you understand as fact?

With respect to your statement that I made bold: can you quote from the judgement CTC copy to emphasize your statement?

The same court judgement affirmed the powers of the Senate as enshrined in the Rules and Regulations of the Senate, to punish senators who go contrary to the rules.

The same court judgement affirmed that Senator Natasha Apoti violated the rule and regulations on that said date on her change of seat matter and the judgement affirmed that she went contrary to the rules and regulations.

The powers of the Senate has been wielded against a disorderly, disruptive and unruly senator. You can interpret it to be whatever you wish: "punishes dissent, suppresses bold voices, and selectively enforces rules."

The truth has been spoken and pointed to you several times but you have chosen to believe the lies. We are not as gullible as you are.

Let’s stop pretending selective reading is the same as legal comprehension. You throw around judicial terms like “CTC” and “affirmed powers” without properly digesting the actual spirit and intent of the judgment. So let’s break this down clearly.

First, your obsession with the Senate’s “power to punish” doesn’t override the principle of fair hearing, proportionality, and context — all of which are embedded in both the Nigerian Constitution and parliamentary procedures. Power is not a license for abuse, and no judgment endorsed arbitrariness. The court only reiterated that the Senate has disciplinary powers — which no one is disputing. But how that power is exercised is subject to judicial review and public accountability.

Secondly, you claim the judgment confirmed that Senator Natasha violated Senate rules. If that’s the case, then cite the exact lines from the Certified True Copy (CTC) that spell out:

1. The precise rule she violated.

2. The proportionate justification for the disproportionate punishment meted out.
You can’t — because no such clarity exists. The judgment did not rule on the fairness or excessiveness of the punishment — it merely acknowledged the Senate’s internal regulatory authority, not its correctness in this specific case.

You claim Natasha was “disorderly and disruptive.” That’s your personal spin, not an objective truth. What she did was challenge an unfair relocation of her seat, a symbolic and calculated act of intimidation. If standing one’s ground against such political bullying makes her “unruly” in your eyes, then thank God Kogi Central didn’t elect a coward to represent them.

You also mentioned that “truth has been spoken.” Yes — and the truth is this: Senator Natasha Akpoti is being targeted for her boldness, her refusal to submit to a cabal, and her rising influence in a chamber that’s clearly uncomfortable with independent voices. You can dress it up however you like, but Nigerians are watching — and many can see through the Senate’s selective enforcement and power games.

Lastly, don’t confuse dissent with gullibility. It takes intelligence to question power, and it takes blind loyalty to justify abuse. We choose the former.

CreativeOrbit:
Let’s stop pretending selective reading is the same as legal comprehension. You throw around judicial terms like “CTC” and “affirmed powers” without properly digesting the actual spirit and intent of the judgment. So let’s break this down clearly.

First, your obsession with the Senate’s “power to punish” doesn’t override the principle of fair hearing, proportionality, and context — all of which are embedded in both the Nigerian Constitution and parliamentary procedures. Power is not a license for abuse, and no judgment endorsed arbitrariness. The court only reiterated that the Senate has disciplinary powers — which no one is disputing. But how that power is exercised is subject to judicial review and public accountability.

Secondly, you claim the judgment confirmed that Senator Natasha violated Senate rules. If that’s the case, then cite the exact lines from the Certified True Copy (CTC) that spell out:

1. The precise rule she violated.

2. The proportionate justification for the disproportionate punishment meted out.
You can’t — because no such clarity exists. The judgment did not rule on the fairness or excessiveness of the punishment — it merely acknowledged the Senate’s internal regulatory authority, not its correctness in this specific case.

You claim Natasha was “disorderly and disruptive.” That’s your personal spin, not an objective truth. What she did was challenge an unfair relocation of her seat, a symbolic and calculated act of intimidation. If standing one’s ground against such political bullying makes her “unruly” in your eyes, then thank God Kogi Central didn’t elect a coward to represent them.

You also mentioned that “truth has been spoken.” Yes — and the truth is this: Senator Natasha Akpoti is being targeted for her boldness, her refusal to submit to a cabal, and her rising influence in a chamber that’s clearly uncomfortable with independent voices. You can dress it up however you like, but Nigerians are watching — and many can see through the Senate’s selective enforcement and power games.

Lastly, don’t confuse dissent with gullibility. It takes intelligence to question power, and it takes blind loyalty to justify abuse. We choose the former.

Go back to the Judgement sheet (CTC) and read carefully, then attend to my questions again:

Does the Senate have the power to punish Senator Natasha Apoti or any other senator? Yes or No?

Go back and read your depositions on this topic to me, you have been insisting that the Senate has no power to punish the senator. You opined that it was illegal.

Which judiciary will review the power of the Senate to punish senators that commits infractions against the Senate rules and regulations? The judiciary will only decide what is legal or otherwise and the judiciary already told you that it is legal for the Senate to punish senators when they commit infringements against the rules and regulations.

What do you mean about questioning the correctness especially where the rules and regulations is the law in the senate?

Natasha Apoti was disorderly, unruly, disrespectful and disruptive on that day. Don't you understand English language anymore or you can't consult Google to check the meanings of those words in bold?

Was she the only senator whose seat was reallocated? No!
Is it a new practice in the Senate to reallocate seats? No!
Is it legal for the Senate leadership to reallocate seats of senators from time to time and put the senator's names at the new seat and equip the seat for effective communication in the Senate? Yes! (If you are not sure, go and read the rules and regulations of the Senate again or check the judgement CTC document again to refresh your mind; it was addressed there as well.)

When did obeying rules and regulations of your institution or organization become bullying? If you are not comfortable with the rules and regulations and you can't respectfully, orderly and humbly communicate your discomfort to your colleagues, you should just resign as a Senator so that your constituency can elect someone else to represent them. The Senate is not designed to conform to your rules or opinion, you the senators are to conform to the rules and regulations of the Senate while there; senators will come and go while the Senate will remain in existence even in the Forseable future.

The truth is that Senator Natasha Apoti Uduaghan has constituted nuisance and turned the Senate into a comedy and Nollywood scene. What is the big deal about seating arrangements, so much that it discomforts Natasha Apoti to the extent of disrupting activities on that day, insulting the presiding officer, throwing tantrums all over like a kid and acting against the rules and regulations?

What rising influence does she have in the chamber? Natasha Apoti Uduaghan is one of the least regarded senators in the Senate - when you don't respect yourself and respect your colleagues, you will be disregarded.

Sure, Nigerians are watching Natasha Apoti Uduaghan ridicule the Senate, Senate leadership and herself. Some of us aren't enjoying the desecration of the esteemed Senate by a first time senator who has an inflated impression of herself and thinks she is above the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Lastly, it takes the power and authority of the rules and regulations, legally approved power, to discipline senators who commit infringements in the Senate without caring to apologize and make efforts to conform with the order, rules and regulations of the Senate.

Wallade:
Go back to the Judgement sheet (CTC) and read carefully, then attend to my questions again:

Does the Senate have the power to punish Senator Natasha Apoti or any other senator? Yes or No?

Go back and read your depositions on this topic to me, you have been insisting that the Senate has no power to punish the senator. You opined that it was illegal.

Which judiciary will review the power of the Senate to punish senators that commits infractions against the Senate rules and regulations? The judiciary will only decide what is legal or otherwise and the judiciary already told you that it is legal for the Senate to punish senators when they commit infringements against the rules and regulations.

What do you mean about questioning the correctness especially where the rules and regulations is the law in the senate?

Natasha Apoti was disorderly, unruly, disrespectful and disruptive on that day. Don't you understand English language anymore or you can't consult Google to check the meanings of those words in bold?

Was she the only senator whose seat was reallocated? No!
Is it a new practice in the Senate to reallocate seats? No!
Is it legal for the Senate leadership to reallocate seats of senators from time to time and put the senator's names at the new seat and equip the seat for effective communication in the Senate? Yes! (If you are not sure, go and read the rules and regulations of the Senate again or check the judgement CTC document again to refresh your mind; it was addressed there as well.)

When did obeying rules and regulations of your institution or organization become bullying? If you are not comfortable with the rules and regulations and you can't respectfully, orderly and humbly communicate your discomfort to your colleagues, you should just resign as a Senator so that your constituency can elect someone else to represent them. The Senate is not designed to conform to your rules or opinion, you the senators are to conform to the rules and regulations of the Senate while there; senators will come and go while the Senate will remain in existence even in the Forseable future.

The truth is that Senator Natasha Apoti Uduaghan has constituted nuisance and turned the Senate into a comedy and Nollywood scene. What is the big deal about seating arrangements, so much that it discomforts Natasha Apoti to the extent of disrupting activities on that day, insulting the presiding officer, throwing tantrums all over like a kid and acting against the rules and regulations?

What rising influence does she have in the chamber? Natasha Apoti Uduaghan is one of the least regarded senators in the Senate - when you don't respect yourself and respect your colleagues, you will be disregarded.

Sure, Nigerians are watching Natasha Apoti Uduaghan ridicule the Senate, Senate leadership and herself. Some of us aren't enjoying the desecration of the esteemed Senate by a first time senator who has an inflated impression of herself and thinks she is above the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Lastly, it takes the power and authority of the rules and regulations, legally approved power, to discipline senators who commit infringements in the Senate without caring to apologize and make efforts to conform with the order, rules and regulations of the Senate.

Let’s put the emotions aside and speak with intellectual clarity, because it seems you’re fixated on semantics and surface-level interpretation, rather than dealing with the core issues of abuse of power, selective enforcement, and political bias.

Yes, the Senate has disciplinary powers. That has never been in dispute. What we have rightly questioned — and will continue to question — is how those powers are applied, whether they follow due process, and whether they are exercised with fairness and without political vindictiveness.

Your rigid “Yes or No” style of interrogation might work in online banter, but in serious discourse, nuance matters. Let me break it down simply for you:

1. Yes, the Senate has powers to discipline.

2. No, that power is not absolute or beyond judicial review.

3. Yes, if that power is exercised in a way that violates the Constitution, the principles of fair hearing, or targets dissenters selectively, then the Judiciary has both the right and the duty to intervene.

So before you throw legal terms around, understand this: Internal rules of the Senate cannot override the Constitution. And disciplinary actions must meet basic standards of justice, not be used as weapons against voices that refuse to conform to a toxic political culture.

Now let’s address your claim that Senator Natasha was “disorderly, unruly, disrespectful, and disruptive.” On what grounds? For challenging the unilateral and unjust reassignment of her seat — a clear attempt to symbolically isolate and humiliate her? Since when did standing your ground become a crime in the Senate?

You ask if I understand English — I do. Very well. I also understand how these labels — “unruly,” “disruptive,” “disrespectful” — are weaponized by insecure leadership to delegitimize strong, independent voices, especially women who refuse to be silenced.

The Senate leadership didn’t discipline Natasha because she broke any serious rule — they punished her because she refused to kneel to their backdoor politics, expose, and silence. And that, to many Nigerians, is the real issue.

So while you’re busy defending institutional overreach, remember this: we elected her to speak truth to power, not to massage egos. And she is doing exactly that. You may not like it, but history will remember her far more kindly than those enabling a corrupt Senate to trample over dissent.

aylipple:
Ok. Just so you know, they did and when the matter went before Justice Binta Nyako of the FHC, Abuja, she didn't rule or declare that the Senate lacks the powers to discipline its members as it deems fit, she only stated that the "punishment" in this case, 6 months suspension, may have been to harsh considering the implications for her constituents who will be denied representation in the upper chamber of the National Assembly for that duration of time.

Meanwhile, do you mind just for the sake of deepening knowledge, share your view on how the Senate and indeed the legislative arm is supposed to place its "erring" members in check aside suspension from legislative duties? I'll really like to know your thoughts.

But you will agree with me that legal system in Nigeria under APC has been compromised.

So politicians under APC especially use courts to met down injustice setting bad records .


It's on records mind you

CreativeOrbit:
Let’s put the emotions aside and speak with intellectual clarity, because it seems you’re fixated on semantics and surface-level interpretation, rather than dealing with the core issues of abuse of power, selective enforcement, and political bias.

Yes, the Senate has disciplinary powers. That has never been in dispute. What we have rightly questioned — and will continue to question — is how those powers are applied, whether they follow due process, and whether they are exercised with fairness and without political vindictiveness.

Your rigid “Yes or No” style of interrogation might work in online banter, but in serious discourse, nuance matters. Let me break it down simply for you:

1. Yes, the Senate has powers to discipline.

2. No, that power is not absolute or beyond judicial review.

3. Yes, if that power is exercised in a way that violates the Constitution, the principles of fair hearing, or targets dissenters selectively, then the Judiciary has both the right and the duty to intervene.

So before you throw legal terms around, understand this: Internal rules of the Senate cannot override the Constitution. And disciplinary actions must meet basic standards of justice, not be used as weapons against voices that refuse to conform to a toxic political culture.

Now let’s address your claim that Senator Natasha was “disorderly, unruly, disrespectful, and disruptive.” On what grounds? For challenging the unilateral and unjust reassignment of her seat — a clear attempt to symbolically isolate and humiliate her? Since when did standing your ground become a crime in the Senate?

You ask if I understand English — I do. Very well. I also understand how these labels — “unruly,” “disruptive,” “disrespectful” — are weaponized by insecure leadership to delegitimize strong, independent voices, especially women who refuse to be silenced.

The Senate leadership didn’t discipline Natasha because she broke any serious rule — they punished her because she refused to kneel to their backdoor politics, expose, and silence. And that, to many Nigerians, is the real issue.

So while you’re busy defending institutional overreach, remember this: we elected her to speak truth to power, not to massage egos. And she is doing exactly that. You may not like it, but history will remember her far more kindly than those enabling a corrupt Senate to trample over dissent.

The entire Senate voted unanimously to discipline a colleague that infringed on the rules and regulations.

You said and I quote:
"that power is exercised in a way that violates the Constitution, the principles of fair hearing, or targets dissenters selectively, then the Judiciary has both the right and the duty to intervene."

Your Natasha Apoti was given the opportunity of fair hearing - did you forget that her case was originally referred to the Senate Committee on ethics and privileges, they request her to come to their meeting to defend herself but she refused to show up so decision was taken on the basis of evidence available to them. Of course, everyone saw her unruly, disruptive, disorderly and disrespectful behavior on that day so it was a straight forward case to decide. The committee recommended punishment for her to the Senate and Senate took the decision on the punishment unanimously. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to go into any institution and violate, disobey and disregard the rules and regulations. Judiciary has no right to moderate, dictate or determine the activities or proceedings or declarations in the senate, national Assembly at large, especially when such actions are backed and in line with the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Again, I repeat: Natasha Apoti Uduaghan's punishment is well deserved due to her unruly, disorderly, disruptive and disrespectful conduct in the Senate on that day. It will not be tolerated from her or any senator in the Senate. You can call it Weaponization or whatever, that would be your business - the rules and regulations of the Senate is law when you are within and operating in the Senate.

If Natasha Apoti must kneel down, she can go and do that to her elders at home or to her husband. No one in the Senate needs her to kneel down or submit to any other senator. However, she must submit to the rules and regulations of the Senate. It is superior to all the senators; it guides all the senators.

She was elected to represent her constituency by legislating and making laws to improve the standard of living, development and progress of her people and Nigeria at large. She was not elected to be dishonorable, disruptive, disrespectful, disorderly and combatant in the Senate. She was elected to engage diplomacy, effective communication, relationship management and necessary office etiquette to get the entire Senate to reason with her and approve her intelligent and reasonable depositions in the Senate, within the confines of the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Wallade:
The entire Senate voted unanimously to discipline a colleague that infringed on the rules and regulations.

You said and I quote:
"that power is exercised in a way that violates the Constitution, the principles of fair hearing, or targets dissenters selectively, then the Judiciary has both the right and the duty to intervene."

Your Natasha Apoti was given the opportunity of fair hearing - did you forget that her case was originally referred to the Senate Committee on ethics and privileges, they request her to come to their meeting to defend herself but she refused to show up so decision was taken on the basis of evidence available to them. Of course, everyone saw her unruly, disruptive, disorderly and disrespectful behavior on that day so it was a straight forward case to decide. The committee recommended punishment for her to the Senate and Senate took the decision on the punishment unanimously. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to go into any institution and violate, disobey and disregard the rules and regulations. Judiciary has no right to moderate, dictate or determine the activities or proceedings or declarations in the senate, national Assembly at large, especially when such actions are backed and in line with the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Again, I repeat: Natasha Apoti Uduaghan's punishment is well deserved due to her unruly, disorderly, disruptive and disrespectful conduct in the Senate on that day. It will not be tolerated from her or any senator in the Senate. You can call it Weaponization or whatever, that would be your business - the rules and regulations of the Senate is law when you are within and operating in the Senate.

If Natasha Apoti must kneel down, she can go and do that to her elders at home or to her husband. No one in the Senate needs her to kneel down or submit to any other senator. However, she must submit to the rules and regulations of the Senate. It is superior to all the senators; it guides all the senators.

She was elected to represent her constituency by legislating and making laws to improve the standard of living, development and progress of her people and Nigeria at large. She was not elected to be dishonorable, disruptive, disrespectful, disorderly and combatant in the Senate. She was elected to engage diplomacy, effective communication, relationship management and necessary office etiquette to get the entire Senate to reason with her and approve her intelligent and reasonable depositions in the Senate, within the confines of the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Your long-winded defense of the Senate’s action is built on a shaky foundation — a selective understanding of due process, an inflated reverence for Senate “rules,” and a subtle attempt to mask political intimidation as institutional discipline. So let’s unpack this with clarity.

1. “The Senate voted unanimously” — So what?

Unanimity does not equal justice. History is full of unanimous decisions that were grossly unjust. When a body acts out of political interest or internal bias, the number of hands raised doesn't sanctify the action — it only reveals how deep the complicity runs. What matters is whether the procedure followed meets the standards of law, fairness, and impartiality. And in this case, it did not.

2. On Fair Hearing: What You’re Leaving Out

You argue she was given fair hearing because she was invited to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges but didn’t appear. What you're intentionally ignoring is the toxic, predetermined environment surrounding that invitation. When the entire leadership is politically aligned against a dissenting voice, and the media is already labeling her before she appears, that’s not a fair process — it’s a trap.

Besides, fair hearing is not just about sending an invitation — it’s about providing a neutral platform, reasonable time, and assurance that the outcome is not already fixed. What she received was a setup, not a hearing.

3. “She was unruly and disruptive” — A Convenient Label

Let’s get this straight: Standing up to unjust seat reassignment is not unruly — it is called resistance. What you call “disrespectful” and “disorderly” is what the rest of us see as boldness, principle, and courage. You want senators to behave like ornaments — seen but not heard — unless they’re parroting the dominant voices in the chamber.

Calling her behavior “disruptive” is an easy way to dismiss her without addressing the real question: Why was she targeted? Why was her seat reassigned with no explanation? Why are independent voices always the first to be “disciplined”?

4. “Judiciary has no right to interfere in Senate matters” — False.

This is where your argument completely collapses. The Senate’s rules are not above the Constitution. No institution in a democracy is above judicial review — not even the National Assembly. When the Senate acts in a way that violates the rights of a member, abuses its own rules, or becomes an instrument of political suppression, the Judiciary not only has the right — it has the responsibility to step in.

That is the beauty of a democracy: Checks and balances.

5. “She must kneel to the rules” — The Rules Must Also Obey the Law

You say she must submit to the rules. Very well. But those rules must themselves align with the Constitution and the spirit of justice. You cannot use “internal rules” as a weapon to silence dissent, then hide behind them when called out.

And your final comment — about kneeling to her husband or elders — exposes the condescending and patriarchal mindset behind your entire argument. She wasn’t elected to kneel — she was elected to lead, to speak, to legislate, and to challenge dysfunction where necessary. If that threatens fragile egos, so be it.

Final Note:

Senator Natasha Akpoti is not in the Senate to play palace politics or to survive by submission. She is there to represent the people boldly, and with principle. If that ruffles the feathers of a system more concerned with obedience than justice, then so be it.

You may prefer quiet puppets in the chamber, but Kogi Central chose a lioness.

And no, she will not kneel for intimidation masquerading as order.

CreativeOrbit:
Your long-winded defense of the Senate’s action is built on a shaky foundation — a selective understanding of due process, an inflated reverence for Senate “rules,” and a subtle attempt to mask political intimidation as institutional discipline. So let’s unpack this with clarity.

1. “The Senate voted unanimously” — So what?

Unanimity does not equal justice. History is full of unanimous decisions that were grossly unjust. When a body acts out of political interest or internal bias, the number of hands raised doesn't sanctify the action — it only reveals how deep the complicity runs. What matters is whether the procedure followed meets the standards of law, fairness, and impartiality. And in this case, it did not.

2. On Fair Hearing: What You’re Leaving Out

You argue she was given fair hearing because she was invited to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges but didn’t appear. What you're intentionally ignoring is the toxic, predetermined environment surrounding that invitation. When the entire leadership is politically aligned against a dissenting voice, and the media is already labeling her before she appears, that’s not a fair process — it’s a trap.

Besides, fair hearing is not just about sending an invitation — it’s about providing a neutral platform, reasonable time, and assurance that the outcome is not already fixed. What she received was a setup, not a hearing.

3. “She was unruly and disruptive” — A Convenient Label

Let’s get this straight: Standing up to unjust seat reassignment is not unruly — it is called resistance. What you call “disrespectful” and “disorderly” is what the rest of us see as boldness, principle, and courage. You want senators to behave like ornaments — seen but not heard — unless they’re parroting the dominant voices in the chamber.

Calling her behavior “disruptive” is an easy way to dismiss her without addressing the real question: Why was she targeted? Why was her seat reassigned with no explanation? Why are independent voices always the first to be “disciplined”?

4. “Judiciary has no right to interfere in Senate matters” — False.

This is where your argument completely collapses. The Senate’s rules are not above the Constitution. No institution in a democracy is above judicial review — not even the National Assembly. When the Senate acts in a way that violates the rights of a member, abuses its own rules, or becomes an instrument of political suppression, the Judiciary not only has the right — it has the responsibility to step in.

That is the beauty of a democracy: Checks and balances.

5. “She must kneel to the rules” — The Rules Must Also Obey the Law

You say she must submit to the rules. Very well. But those rules must themselves align with the Constitution and the spirit of justice. You cannot use “internal rules” as a weapon to silence dissent, then hide behind them when called out.

And your final comment — about kneeling to her husband or elders — exposes the condescending and patriarchal mindset behind your entire argument. She wasn’t elected to kneel — she was elected to lead, to speak, to legislate, and to challenge dysfunction where necessary. If that threatens fragile egos, so be it.

Final Note:

Senator Natasha Akpoti is not in the Senate to play palace politics or to survive by submission. She is there to represent the people boldly, and with principle. If that ruffles the feathers of a system more concerned with obedience than justice, then so be it.

You may prefer quiet puppets in the chamber, but Kogi Central chose a lioness.

And no, she will not kneel for intimidation masquerading as order.

I have done enough explanation to address your misleading statements and misinformation. I have had enough, I am not interested in discussion with people that have their gullible minds made up on deception, deceit and lies.

Your Natasha Apoti went to court to appeal the judgement, for whatever reasons, despite her claims that the judgement was in her favor.

The Senate and Senate President also filed an appeal against the judgement.

Let's see how that pans out at the Court of Appeal.

However, you can encourage Natasha Apoti not to resume at the Senate till the case is determined at the Court of Appeal.

Let's have some sanity and tranquility in the Senate to create an enabling environment for other senators to work and not be distracted.

Wallade:
I have done enough explanation to address your misleading statements and misinformation. I have had enough, I am not interested in discussion with people that have their gullible minds made up on deception, deceit and lies.

Your Natasha Apoti went to court to appeal the judgement, for whatever reasons, despite her claims that the judgement was in her favor.

The Senate and Senate President also filed an appeal against the judgement.

Let's see how that pans out at the Court of Appeal.

However, you can encourage Natasha Apoti not to resume at the Senate till the case is determined at the Court of Appeal.

Let's have some sanity and tranquility in the Senate to create an enabling environment for senators to work and not be distracted.

Your attempt to shut down the conversation only proves one thing — you’re out of arguments. The court ruled clearly that Senator Natasha Akpoti's suspension was unlawful and unconstitutional. That is not misinformation — it is a legal fact. If both parties chose to appeal different aspects of the judgment, that’s their right. But until a higher court rules otherwise, the existing judgment stands and must be respected.

Calling for her to stay away from the Senate while the appeal is pending is nothing but a subtle endorsement of continued injustice and political suppression. You claim to want "sanity and tranquility" in the Senate, yet remain silent about the Senate leadership’s high-handedness under Akpabio, which is the real source of chaos.

Senator Natasha has a legal mandate and every right to resume. Democracy does not work by silencing elected voices — it works by upholding the rule of law.

CreativeOrbit:
Let’s put the emotions aside and speak with intellectual clarity, because it seems you’re fixated on semantics and surface-level interpretation, rather than dealing with the core issues of abuse of power, selective enforcement, and political bias.

Yes, the Senate has disciplinary powers. That has never been in dispute. What we have rightly questioned — and will continue to question — is how those powers are applied, whether they follow due process, and whether they are exercised with fairness and without political vindictiveness.

Your rigid “Yes or No” style of interrogation might work in online banter, but in serious discourse, nuance matters. Let me break it down simply for you:

1. Yes, the Senate has powers to discipline.

2. No, that power is not absolute or beyond judicial review.

3. Yes, if that power is exercised in a way that violates the Constitution, the principles of fair hearing, or targets dissenters selectively, then the Judiciary has both the right and the duty to intervene.

So before you throw legal terms around, understand this: Internal rules of the Senate cannot override the Constitution. And disciplinary actions must meet basic standards of justice, not be used as weapons against voices that refuse to conform to a toxic political culture.

Now let’s address your claim that Senator Natasha was “disorderly, unruly, disrespectful, and disruptive.” On what grounds? For challenging the unilateral and unjust reassignment of her seat — a clear attempt to symbolically isolate and humiliate her? Since when did standing your ground become a crime in the Senate?

You ask if I understand English — I do. Very well. I also understand how these labels — “unruly,” “disruptive,” “disrespectful” — are weaponized by insecure leadership to delegitimize strong, independent voices, especially women who refuse to be silenced.

The Senate leadership didn’t discipline Natasha because she broke any serious rule — they punished her because she refused to kneel to their backdoor politics, expose, and silence. And that, to many Nigerians, is the real issue.

So while you’re busy defending institutional overreach, remember this: we elected her to speak truth to power, not to massage egos. And she is doing exactly that. You may not like it, but history will remember her far more kindly than those enabling a corrupt Senate to trample over dissent.

So much breeze and bluster.
You suggest putting emotions aside Presumably YOU have appointed yourself as emotional police, judge and enforcer

To me you sound quite emotional and that justifies the requirement for aye or nay responses to dispense with circular and unproductive arguments
The Senate hasthe power to suspend her,it exercised the power she challenged it seeking a reinstatement order. She did not succeed

I think that is as factual and devoid of emotion as is necessary

The reason you propose for her suspension is perhaps plausible to some but not of any jurisprudential moment as far as the courts are concerned but likely would be of pedagogic valuable for many years.

Your view that there was a. CLEAR ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE AND HUMILIATE her might be clear to you but that is not a unanimous or ubiquitous view

Are we to understand that the previous occupant of that seat was isolated and humiliated?

Sounds emotional to me.........

aribisala0:
So much breeze and bluster.
You suggest putting emotions aside Presumably YOU have appointed yourself as emotional police, judge and enforcer

To me you sound quite emotional and that justifies the requirement for aye or nay responses to dispense with circular and unproductive arguments
The Senate hasthe power to suspend her,it exercised the power she challenged it seeking a reinstatement order. She did not succeed

I think that is as factual and devoid of emotion as is necessary

The reason you propose for her suspension is perhaps plausible to some but not of any jurisprudential moment as far as the courts are concerned but likely would be of pedagogic valuable for many years.

Your view that there was a. CLEAR ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE AND HUMILIATE her might be clear to you but that is not a unanimous or ubiquitous view

Are we to understand that the previous occupant of that seat was isolated and humiliated?

Sounds emotional to me.........

Your attempt to sound detached doesn’t conceal the bias in your logic. Let’s deal strictly with facts, not sophistry.

The Federal High Court ruled that Natasha Akpoti’s suspension was unconstitutional, excessive, and a violation of her fundamental rights. That ruling undermines your claim that “she did not succeed.” If she hadn’t succeeded, the court wouldn't have ordered a review of her suspension. Reinstatement was implied by law, since no senator can be barred unlawfully from performing her constitutional duties.

Your "aye or nay" approach to complex constitutional matters is precisely the problem — oversimplifying serious abuse of legislative power as parliamentary routine. This is not emotion — it is a defense of due process.

Whether others were isolated before is irrelevant; two wrongs don’t make a right. What Natasha faced was targeted suppression — and that should concern anyone who values democracy, not just her supporters.

CreativeOrbit:
Your attempt to sound detached doesn’t conceal the bias in your logic. Let’s deal strictly with facts, not sophistry.

The Federal High Court ruled that Natasha Akpoti’s suspension was unconstitutional, excessive, and a violation of her fundamental rights. That ruling undermines your claim that “she did not succeed.” If she hadn’t succeeded, the court wouldn't have ordered a review of her suspension. Reinstatement was implied by law, since no senator can be barred unlawfully from performing her constitutional duties.

Your "aye or nay" approach to complex constitutional matters is precisely the problem — oversimplifying serious abuse of legislative power as parliamentary routine. This is not emotion — it is a defense of due process.

Whether others were isolated before is irrelevant; two wrongs don’t make a right. What Natasha faced was targeted suppression — and that should concern anyone who values democracy, not just her supporters.

The court ruled the suspension was unconstitutional ? Can you quote the relevant part of the ruling please
Kindly dispense with any other verbiage

Just quote the ruling

Thanks

aribisala0:
The court ruled the suspension was unconstitutional ? Can you quote the relevant part of the ruling please
Kindly dispense with any other verbiage

Just quote the ruling

Thanks

Justice Nyako ruled that Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan’s six‑month suspension was “excessive, unconstitutional, and a violation of the people of Kogi Central’s right to representation”, and ordered her immediate recall to the Senate.

This is not opinion—it is a clear legal determination. The court did not say, “you may stay away”; it said she must return immediately, because:

🟢 The suspension was too long.

🟢 It infringed on her constituents’ constitutional right to representation.

🟢 The Senate acted beyond its lawful authority.

You may disagree, but until a higher court overturns this judgment, it remains binding. Anything short of her unconditional return to the Senate is a deliberate defiance of judicial authority—and a threat to the fundamental rule of law in our democracy.

CreativeOrbit:
Justice Nyako ruled that Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan’s six‑month suspension was “excessive, unconstitutional, and a violation of the people of Kogi Central’s right to representation”, and ordered her immediate recall to the Senate.

This is not opinion—it is a clear legal determination. The court did not say, “you may stay away”; it said she must return immediately, because:

🟢 The suspension was too long.

🟢 It infringed on her constituents’ constitutional right to representation.

🟢 The Senate acted beyond its lawful authoⁿrity.

You may disagree, but until a higher court overturns this judgment, it remains binding. Anything short of her unconditional return to the Senate is a deliberate defiance of judicial authority—and a threat to the fundamental rule of law in our democracy.

Too long

Can you quote the ruling verbatim
I did not ask for your opinions or commentary

Just provide a quote

You waste so much time telling us what the court did not say

What did the court actually say

YOU claimed the court ruled the suspension was unconstitutional but you cannot substantiate your claim

Are we to conclude you lied?