Loading ...ONITSHA, ANAMBRA STATE — The High Court of Anambra State, sitting in Onitsha, has formally granted permission to the legal team of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, to serve an ₦8 billion defamation lawsuit on his former campaign spokesperson, Kenneth Okonkwo, through substituted means.
The presiding judge, Justice D.A. Onyefulu, issued the order following an ex-parte application brought by Obi’s counsel after initial attempts by the court bailiff to effect personal service on Okonkwo proved unsuccessful. Under Nigerian civil procedure rules, substituted service is utilized when standard personal service cannot be readily achieved, allowing legal documents to be delivered via alternative routes recognized by the court.
The Order for Substituted Service
Justice Onyefulu directed that the writ of summons, statement of claims, and all subsequent court processes be served by pasting them at Okonkwo’s last known residential address located at NPR 48 Ofuluonu, Nsukka, Enugu State.
To ensure strict compliance and institutional transparency, the court ordered that the process of pasting the documents be photographed and filed within the court record as concrete proof of service.
Prior to this judicial directive, Okonkwo, an actor-turned-lawyer and chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), had publicly stated during media appearances that he had not received any formal court processes, noting he only became aware of the lawsuit via social media channels. With the substituted service now executed within the court-mandated timeframe, the defense timeline is legally triggered.
Genesis of the ₦8 Billion Dispute
The legal friction between the former political allies stems from comments made by Okonkwo during a live broadcast on Channels Television. During the program, Okonkwo alleged that Obi and the South-East caucus of the NDC had orchestrated a scheme to extort ₦10 million each from House of Representatives aspirants in exchange for automatic tickets.
Okonkwo specifically claimed that an aspirant from Anambra State, Obunike Ohaegbu, had sent him electronic evidence claiming he was defrauded of ₦10 million. However, the narrative shifted when Ohaegbu subsequently appeared on television to categorically deny Okonkwo’s claims, stating that Peter Obi never demanded nor received such funds and that both he and Obi were targets of misinformation.
Following Okonkwo’s refusal to retract the statements after a pre-action notice, Obi’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Alex Ejesieme, filed the multi-billion naira suit.
Breakdown of the Financial Demands
The statement of claim outlines a cumulative demand of ₦8 billion in damages, structured to address separate tiers of civil liability:
- ₦5 Billion in general damages for grave injury to character, political standing, and hard-earned public reputation.
- ₦2 Billion in aggravated damages.
- ₦1 Billion in exemplary damages, citing the deliberate repetition and amplification of the allegedly defamatory remarks on digital platforms after receiving the initial pre-action notice.
In addition to financial compensation, the suit seeks an injunction compelling Okonkwo to publish an unequivocal retraction and apology across three national dailies and his personal social media handles—with a specific mandate to keep the apology pinned to the top of his digital feeds.
Political Realignment and Courtroom Arbitrations
For political analysts, this case mirrors the intense fracturing occurring within opposition coalitions ahead of the 2027 general elections. Both men worked closely during the 2023 cycle under the Labour Party umbrella. Their subsequent migrations to different political vehicles—with Obi securing the NDC presidential ticket and Okonkwo aligned with the ADC’s national working committee—set the stage for severe ideological and personal friction.
The transition of this dispute from television studios to a High Court room underscores a growing trend among Nigeria’s political class to utilize tort law and defamation suits as mechanisms to protect political capital and police the boundaries of fair comment versus verifiable libel.
