James Ogunnaike, Abeokuta
The National Vice Chairman (South-West) of the Labor Party, Abayomi Arabambi, has sent a letter of pre-action to the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, demanding a public retraction, an apology and compensation of N50 billion for an alleged defamatory statement made during a podcast interview.
The demand was contained in a letter dated July 3, 2026, issued by Neplus Ultra Attorneys and signed by Anderson W. Asemota, Peter O. Asimegbe and Stanley K. Ezifulle on behalf of Arambi.
According to the letter, the lawsuit stems from comments Obi allegedly made during an interview where he allegedly stated that Arabambi “has no address.”
Arabambi’s lawyers argued that the statement was false, malicious and defamatory, arguing that it portrayed their client as a faceless man lacking legitimacy, credibility and standing in public life.
The lawyers argued that the interview was subsequently circulated across television stations and multiple digital platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp, thereby exposing their client to widespread public ridicule.
The letter states: “Our client had a known residential and work address, maintained professional and political connections in Nigeria and was never a person whose whereabouts or identity were unknown.”
He also claimed that the publication damaged Arabambi’s reputation and exposed him to embarrassment and public ridicule.
“The ordinary and natural meaning that reasonable viewers would give to your publication was that our client is a faceless and unidentifiable individual, has no known abode, has no legitimate position in public life, and is not worthy of public trust,” the lawyers wrote.
The legal team also said the backlash on social media following the interview demonstrated that viewers perceived the alleged remark as an attack on Arabambi’s personality and public authority.
According to the lawyers, Obi, as a prominent political figure and NDC presidential candidate, should have exercised great caution before making statements that could damage the reputation of another person.
The letter argued that the circumstances of the publication revealed both explicit and implied malice, and insisted that the statement was made with full appreciation of the audience it would reach.
“Our client has suffered significant embarrassment, humiliation and damage to his reputation. The defamatory publication damaged his standing in political and social circles and exposed him to unnecessary attacks on his integrity and character,” the letter said.
As part of its demands, Arabambi’s legal team demanded that Obi, within seven days of receiving the letter, publish a “clear, unequivocal and unequivocal refutation” of the alleged defamatory statement on the same podcast or another platform of comparable reach.
The lawyers also demanded that an “unconditional public apology” be broadcast on national television and published on Obi’s trusted social media platforms, as well as a full-page apology in Vanguard, The Punch, The Guardian, THISDAY and The Nation newspapers.
In addition, Arabambi is seeking £50 billion in compensation for what he says is damage to his reputation, dignity, political standing and public image.
The letter also asked Obi to give a written undertaking to refrain from making further allegedly defamatory statements about Arabambi and directed him to preserve all materials related to the podcast interview, including video recordings, transcripts, correspondence, emails and digital metadata, warning that any destruction or alteration of evidence could be relied upon in future legal proceedings.
The lawyers warned that failure to comply within seven days would leave their client no choice but to initiate legal proceedings seeking the publication to be declared defamatory, general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, a permanent ban on further publication of such statements, an order requiring a public retraction and apology, interest on the monetary award and the cost of the claim.
“Our Client would prefer that this unfortunate episode be resolved without going to court. However, protecting one’s reputation is a right recognized by law and cannot be waived in the face of a false and damaging publication,” the lawyers said.