Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Pierre Antoine
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja has dismissed a libel suit filed by Olanrewaju Suraju, chairman of the HEDA Resource Centre, against former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke. The ruling, delivered in late February 2026, effectively ends Suraju’s bid for damages over a petition Adoke wrote alleging forged evidence, a legal dispute closely tied to the OPL 245 oil block saga — one of Nigeria’s most complex and controversial cross-border corruption and litigation affairs.
Background to the libel suit dates back to February 2021, when Adoke sent a petition to the Inspector-General of Police alleging that an email and a recorded telephone conversation had been forged and disseminated online to implicate him in criminal proceedings in Italy and related civil cases in the United Kingdom linked to the OPL 245 transaction. Adoke asserted that the purported forgeries were part of a broader campaign to smear his reputation and link him to wrongdoing in the international disputes over the oil block.
Following the petition, the Nigeria Police Service’s Monitoring Unit concluded its investigation later that year and accused Suraju of disseminating false information, describing his actions as potentially constituting cyber-stalking, giving false information, and injurious falsehood. Police reportedly recommended that Suraju be charged with cyber offences and defamation.
Before criminal charges could proceed, Suraju pre-emptively filed a civil libel action against Adoke claiming that the publication of the petition and related media reports had defamed him and his organisation. Suraju sought ₦100 million in damages, arguing that Adoke’s assertions had injured his reputation and that of HEDA. However, on February 26, 2026, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Babangida Hassan, struck out the suit. The court ruled that Suraju failed to prove essential elements of a defamation claim, including establishing that the petition in question contained his name or was published in a manner that could reasonably be held to be defamatory.
The court also held that merely sending a petition to the police — a constitutionally protected right to report alleged wrongdoing — cannot, on its own, constitute defamation. The judge found that the evidence presented by Suraju, including references to an online news article, was insufficient to demonstrate that Adoke’s petition had been disseminated widely or that it directly harmed his reputation. As a result, there was no “publication” of defamatory material for which Adoke could be held liable.
The dismissal carries broader implications beyond the immediate claims of libel. It re-centres public attention on the long-running OPL 245 controversy, a decades-long legal and political saga tracing to a contentious 2011 deal in which Nigeria’s Malabu Oil & Gas handed a valuable offshore oil block to international oil companies Shell and Eni for $1.1 billion. That transaction subsequently became the focus of parallel civil and criminal actions in Italy, the United Kingdom, and Nigeria, with allegations of corruption, bribery, and irregular payments involving multiple parties.
Adoke’s role as Attorney-General during that period made him a central figure in ensuing legal battles. Although he was not directly charged in every jurisdiction, his name appeared prominently in court filings and international media reports. He consistently denied wrongdoing, and by 2024, Nigerian courts had dismissed or acquitted him of corruption and money-laundering charges in relation to OPL 245 after prosecutors failed to establish a prima facie case. Adoke and his legal team have argued that the dismissals vindicate his conduct and expose weaknesses in how allegations were pursued.
The backdrop to the libel suit involves competing narratives about what the OPL 245 controversies represent. Civil society groups such as HEDA have long been vocal critics of the 2011 deal, pushing for accountability and transparency while supporting prosecutions of alleged wrongdoers. HEDA’s legal actions against Adoke and public statements argued that the petition he wrote to police mischaracterised evidence they had circulated, including an email purportedly from Adoke’s account used as evidence in foreign litigation.
Adoke and his supporters, on the other hand, contend that some anti-corruption activists have overstated or manipulated the facts, turning public interest advocacy into what he has described as personal attacks. In public commentary — including in his own writings — Adoke has alleged that activists have pursued reputational harm and unfounded claims, and has been critical of what he calls “mob” anti-corruption tactics in Nigeria.
The High Court’s ruling underscores the legal protections afforded to individuals making complaints to law enforcement, particularly where such communications involve matters of public interest. Nigerian law recognises that defamation suits must satisfy strict criteria — including proof of publication and demonstrable reputational harm — which Suraju’s case did not meet in the eyes of the court. Adoke chose not to mount a defence during the libel suit, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a valid case against him.
While the civil libel action has now been dismissed, the wider debate over OPL 245’s legacy continues. Past rulings in foreign courts, including Italy and the U.K., have at times delivered mixed outcomes, with some courts dismissing corruption claims against international oil firms and others awarding damages against Nigeria in related disputes. Nigeria’s government itself has lost civil actions against financial institutions linked to the transaction.
Observers say the libel case’s dismissal may signal that courts will be cautious about civil litigation that seeks to intertwine reputational claims with ongoing or concluded high-profile disputes, especially where fundamental rights such as the freedom to petition authorities are implicated. For both Adoke and his critics, the episode now becomes part of a larger and evolving chapter in Nigeria’s engagement with transparency, accountability, and the rule of law in governance and resource management.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments