Infoemtion from Kogi Central zone indicate that the country home of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan at Ihima is agog.

A report by a witness circulated on social media stated: “I live at a close distance to Natasha house. She has a very large compound that can take hundreds of people.

In my opinion, all the activities going on are within her expanded mansion. I really do not see any reason for (any) attack so long all her fans do not go to the extreme.

“At the same time, the situation is not as ugly as being painted outside. They may have advised her to remain within her jurisdiction to prevent outsiders from using her home coming to create violence in central.

“In all honesty, I still see some level of good character from the government of the day.

“Unless something happens later today, I can say everything is smooth and fine.

“I see security personnel going everywhere peacefully without harassing anybody. I am reporting from a close distance.

“Though, I could see a helicopter hovering around her house possibly she is now flying back to her base. Peace will reign by the grace of God in Kogi state.”

Report that filtered in about 3 pm that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan beat off security adversaries in Kogi State.

She flew a helicopter into her country home in Kogi Central and hosted a rally in her expansive premises.

She reportedly rubbished the state government’s ban on rallies and congregations targeted at her.

While she was interacting with her constituents, after arriving home by air, thugs were reportedly waiting for her arrival through all road accesses into Kogi State.

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has scheduled its judgment for Wednesday, April 2, 2025, according to.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2024 election. Okpebholo triumphed over Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP).

The tribunal had reserved judgment in the petition filed by the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, who are challenging Okpebholo’s victory. They are alleging electoral irregularities such as over-voting, ballot non-serialization, improper collation, and computation errors.

Throughout the hearings, the petitioners called 19 witnesses and subpoenaed a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who presented 154 BVAS machines to support the over-voting claims.

INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC are the first to third respondents in the case marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024. INEC did not call any witnesses to counter the petitioners’ claims. Okpebholo called one witness, while the APC called four before closing their defense.

The tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, announced that the judgment date would be communicated to all parties by the Secretary of the tribunal.

During the hearings, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), formally adopted their final written address. INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), argued that the case lacked merit and urged the tribunal to dismiss it, pointing out that the petitioners’ polling unit agents had signed the result sheets and could not distinguish between what they heard and observed.

Agabi further criticized the petitioners for failing to present alternative results or credible evidence to support their claims, describing the allegations of non-compliance as weak. On behalf of Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) emphasized that the APC candidate won through valid votes, countering the petitioners’ claims about non-serialization of materials and over-voting.

APC’s counsel, Emmanuel Ukala, also adopted the final address, stating that the petitioners failed to provide enough witnesses to support their case and criticized their limited focus on just five polling units out of over 4,000 in the state.

In response, petitioners’ counsel, Ken Morzi (SAN), clarified that their complaints were confined to 765 polling units and argued that the case should be assessed comprehensively, not just by the percentage of contested polling units. He stressed that their primary issue was with the transformation of 25 votes into 525 at the collation centers.

Elon Musk has responded to the allegations made by Ashley St. Clair, who accused the billionaire entrepreneur of reducing their child support payments by 60%. According to St. Clair’s claims, the drastic reduction in payments forced her to sell her Cybertruck in order to make up for the financial gap.

The allegations were made public through a post on X (formerly Twitter), where Ashley shared her frustrations about the financial support she was receiving from Musk.

In a move that quickly garnered attention, Elon Musk took to Instagram to address the situation. In his post, Musk stated that, despite not being certain whether the child in question is his, he has still provided substantial financial support to Ashley. Musk revealed that he had given Ashley $2.5 million and that he is also sending her $500,000 annually.

He also mentioned that he is open to confirming paternity, noting that he is not opposed to finding out if the child is indeed his, though there is no court order mandating such an action.

Musk’s statement stirred up a lot of conversation online, with many reacting to the financial figures and the ongoing public drama surrounding the child support dispute. His comment about not knowing for sure whether the child is his, despite providing significant funds, has led to further scrutiny and debate about the nature of their relationship and financial arrangements.

This exchange between Musk and St. Clair highlights the complexities of high-profile relationships and the often-public nature of personal financial disputes, with both parties seemingly airing their grievances on social media platforms.

The situation has drawn a wide range of opinions, with some sympathizing with Ashley’s financial struggles, while others have questioned the level of support Musk has provided.

Regardless, the incident has undeniably sparked buzz across social media, bringing attention to both the public figures involved and the ongoing controversy surrounding child support.