Subscribe: Gist E-Paper
Senator Adams Oshiomhole has clarified his earlier comments on the controversy surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, denying that he ever alleged that lawmakers’ signatures were forged in the Senate report that recommended her suspension.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Oshiomhole said his remarks during a recent television interview were misrepresented, stressing that he did not accuse any senator of signature forgery as had been widely reported.
The former Edo State governor explained that his position aligned with that of the Senate spokesperson, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, who had maintained that no senator reported any case of forgery.
According to him, the only point he raised was that a senator who participated in the committee process claimed that attendance signatures of some lawmakers were attached to the final report, a situation he said should not be confused with forgery allegations.
Oshiomhole insisted that any interpretation suggesting he accused anyone of forging signatures was incorrect and should be disregarded.
He added that the matter surrounding Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension had already been concluded by the Senate, noting that the chamber had moved on from the issue.
“I regret if my comments may have caused embarrassment to any Senator or the 10th Senate as an institution,” he stated.
His clarification came amid renewed public discussion over the suspension, with the Senate earlier dismissing claims that the disciplinary process was flawed or manipulated.
Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, had maintained that the suspension was carried out in line with due process and openly deliberated on the floor of the chamber.
He questioned the timing of the renewed allegations, insisting that no senator had at any point formally complained of signature forgery during or after the proceedings.
Adaramodu further argued that the Senate operates under clear rules and that any lawmaker who violates its procedures is subject to appropriate sanctions, stressing that the Akpoti-Uduaghan case was transparently handled within parliamentary practice.
