Headlines
Defamation: Nnamdi Kanu Drags FPRO Adejobi to Court, Demands N20bn Damages
Detained leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has dragged the Nigeria Police Force Public Relations Officer, ACP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, to court for accusing the group of killings in Imo State and other parts of the South-East region.
In the libel suit filed before the FCT High Court in Abuja on Tuesday by his legal team led by his Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu is demanding N20 billion in damages as well as a retraction of the accusations.
The IPOB leader also warned that any security agency or individual directly or indirectly peddling propaganda against IPOB will be sued to compel such an entity or individual to come to court and present their evidence.
Ejimakor who shared details of the suit on his X account on Tuesday night, stated that the detained IPOB leader accused Adejobi of defaming him by calling him and IPOB a terrorist and a terrorist group in a media publication by Vanguard Newspaper on January 25, 2025, titled, “Imo: Police neutralise six IPOB/ESN terrorists, recover arms”.
The lawyer said it was out of place for the police spokesman to label Kanu a terrorist or IPOB a terrorist group as, according to him, a competent high court had held in October 2022 that the Federal Government breached the Constitution in labeling IPOB a terrorist group and that the group was discriminatorily targeted because its membership is populated by the Igbo.
He said, “Earlier today, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team issued a Writ of Summons against ACP OLUMUYIWA ADEJOBI, the Police Public Relations Officer in a Suit for defamation brought on behalf of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” Ejimakor wrote.
“The Suit was filed at the FCT high court for ACP Adejobi’s widely published defamatory utterances, claiming that those killed by police in Owerri three days ago are IPOB members.
“In issuing instructions to file this suit, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu made it very clear that any security agency and others engaging in media trial of his person (directly or indirectly) or peddling propaganda against IPOB will be sued to enable such an entity come to court to present their evidence.
“This is especially compelling as these false narratives can turn prejudicial against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the IPOB which still have pertinent cases pending in court.
“To this end, media houses are hereby encouraged to verify the accuracy of these anti-IPOB, anti-Nnamdi Kanu, anti-Igbo defamatory statements issuing from security agencies that beat their chests and leave the uncanny impression that they are somehow benefiting from stoking insecurity and panic by way of needless propaganda.
“For avoidance of doubt, a competent high court had held in October 2022 that the Federal Government blatantly breached the Constitution in tagging IPOB a terrorist group and that the group was discriminatorily targeted because its membership is populated by the Igbo.
“Therefore, this tendency by security agencies to tag every criminal element encountered in Southeast as IPOB must stop forthwith. If it does not, we shall take prompt vigorous legal steps to protect the name of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and that of Ndigbo who are collectively defamed by this false and libelous narrative.
“To keep tagging every criminal encountered in Southeast as IPOB exhibits a false narrative that defames not only Nnamdi Kanu but the entire Igbo.
“The statements are false and constitute a grave libel on his person, as the words in their natural and ordinary meaning portray him as a leader of a violent and terrorist group.
“The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning were meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant is in fact a leader of a terrorist movement that is to be vicariously blamed for alleged acts of terrorism in Imo State.
“That the words were meant to call into question the Claimant’s honesty, personal integrity and reputation.
“That the Claimant states that these defamatory and libelous statements go far beyond fair comment and are malicious and are designed specifically to impugn his person and character and they were made in bad faith.
“Kanu, therefore, prayed the court for a declaration that Adejobi’s published statements or utterances are libelous and defamatory.
“He also sought an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to retract the said publications through other publications through the same media by way of issuance of another press statement.
“An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to write and deliver to the Claimant, an unreserved letter of apology. The letter of apology shall be prominently and boldly published full-page in three (3) national dailies, namely: then SUN, Daily Trust and Vanguard.
“An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from further and forever uttering the said defamatory and libelous words about or concerning the Claimant.
“An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N20,000,000,000 being general and exemplary damages.
“An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to pay the cost of this Suit.”
Source: Ripples
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
