Premium News
IPOB LEADER, NNAMDI KANU, SLAMS N60BN SUIT AGAINST RENO OMOKRI OVER ALLEGED DEFAMATION
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has filed N60 billion suit against social media influencer, Reno Omokri for an alleged defamatory and prejudicial publication against him, IPOB and his tribe – Ndigbo.
The suit which commenced by Writ Of Summons under Order 3, Rule 3 of the Enugu State High Court is between MAZI NNAMDI KANU suing for himself and on behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra as Plaintiff, and RENO OMOKRI as the Defendant.
Kanu in a statement of fact avowed that the Plaintiff (himself) is a well-known public figure and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an organisation advocating for the self-determination of the its people within the contraption, Nigeria.
He informed the court that “On or about 6/7/2025, the Defendant published or caused to be published, in his verified Twitter (X) account, on certain statements concerning the Plaintiff, falsely alleging that the Plaintiff and IPOB were responsible for the killing of soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel, as well as acts of violence attributed to so-called “Unknown Gunmen.” The said publication is reproduced below in its original nature-
“Do you know how many Nigerian soldiers, police officers, customs, immigration, and prison officers, as well as NSCDC servicemen and women, have been killed by IPOB, ESN, and Unknown Gunmen in the Southeast, of which the majority have been from Northern Nigeria?”
“The said publication further described the Plaintiff and IPOB as engaging in terrorist activities, including the operations of the Eastern Security Network (ESN), without lawful justification or evidence.
“The said statements are false, baseless, prejudicial, and defamatory, as they portray the Plaintiff as a criminal and a terrorist, thereby injuring his reputation, character, exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and prejudicing his ongoing judicial proceedings in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/15 pending at the Federal High Court Abuja.
“Plaintiff contends that as of the date of the malicious statements (6/7/2025), no court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria has convicted the Plaintiff of any offense involving the killing of security personnel or acts of terrorism, rendering the Defendant’s assertions factually incorrect and malicious.
“The Defendant’s publication constitutes prejudicial commentary on the Plaintiff’s pending judicial proceedings, amounting to contempt of court and a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing and presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
He informed the court that the Plaintiff, through his counsel, P.N Agazie Esq of P. N. Agazie & Co., issued a Pre-Action Notice dated 10/7/2025 to the Defendant, demanding: “A retraction of the defamatory statements in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account.
“A public apology admitting to the misrepresentation of facts concerning the Plaintiff; a written undertaking to refrain from further defamatory or prejudicial publications.”
He told the court that despite his demands in the Pre-Action Notice, the Defendant failed, refused, or neglected to comply, thereby forcing him to instituted the case.
Among reliefs he sought from the court are: “General damages in the sum of N50,000,000,000.00 (Fifty Billion Naira) for defamation, including injury to reputation, emotional distress, and prejudice to ongoing judicial proceedings.
“Aggravated damages in the sum of N10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) for the malicious and reckless publication of false statements by the Defendant.
“AN ORDER directing the Defendant to publish a full retraction of the defamatory statements in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account within 7 days of the court’s judgment.
“AN ORDER directing the Defendant to publish a public apology to the Plaintiff in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account, admitting to the misrepresentation of facts.
“A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant his agents, privies, or assigns from further publishing or disseminating such defamatory or prejudicial statements about the Plaintiff without lawful justification.
“Costs of this action, including legal fees and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff.
“Interest on all monetary awards at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment,” it read.
