A High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Zuba is set to deliver judgment on a N500 million libel case filed by a former Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, against Ambassador Lilian Onoh.
The presiding judge, Justice Keziah Ogbonnaya will also deliver her verdict on a counterclaim filed by Ambassador Onoh against Mr Onyeama. She is praying to the court for N2 billion compensation against the former minister.
Mr Onyema had sued Ms Onoh, an ambassador in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who is also a sister to his former wife, for libel, alleging that she defamed him in several memos she sent to then-President Muhammadu Buhari while he was the minister.
The former minister asked the trial judge, Keziah Ogbonnaya, to award him N500 million as compensation against Ambassador Onoh and two other defendants – Akelicious Media Company and Newswire Law & Event Magazine – for “their defamatory publications against” him.
However, in the counterclaim, Ms Onoh, the first defendant in the libel suit filed in 2023, urged the court to “impose a N2 billion” fine on Mr Onyeama “for causing total upheaval and emotional trauma” to her by his “malicious suit.”
According to Ambassador Onoh, a former Nigerian ambassador to Namibia and Haiti, Mr Onyeama lodged the malicious suit as “part of his 40-year-vendetta to avenge his humiliation of being divorced by” her “sister due to unhinged psychiatric behaviour.”
Ambassador Onoh alleged that foreign service staff members stole funds belonging to Nigerian embassies and high commissions on a large scale.
Adopting his final written arguments on Wednesday, 22 May, Mr Onyeama’s lawyer, Agada Elachi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the court to impose N500 million damages against Ms Onoh and other defendants – Akelicious Media Company and Newswire Law & Event Magazine – for “their defamatory publications against” his client.
The claimant also sought an order “compelling the defendants” to apologise to him and “retract the defamatory words uttered” against him.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant… from further uttering, writing…defamatory words against the claimant.”
Mr Elachi said the former minister had discharged the burden of proof placed on him by providing “credible evidence” to substantiate his claims.
The claimant’s lawyer pointed out that the defendants “failed woefully to raise a formidable defence” to Mr Onyeama’s claims.
Mr Elachi dismissed the first defendant’s arguments challenging the propriety of the mode of service of court filings outside her base in the United States.
He equally contended that Ms Onoh’s contention that Mr Onyeama did not swear to the witness statement on oath that accompanied his suit has no legal basis.
Mr Elachi further said Ms Onoh was precluded from questioning Mr Onyeama’s identity because she did not tender any evidence to refute the former minister’s identity in the suit.
In the closing arguments, Ms Onoh’s lawyer, J.O Okpor, said the former minister failed to prove “any defamatory words” his client used against him.
He wondered why Mr Onyeama would seek to “gag the whole world from ever saying things against” him by “judicial sleight of hand.”
Mr Okpor argued that Ms Onoh who testified in the suit via Zoom from her residence at Texas in the US, “proved beyond reasonable doubt that” Mr Onyeama “had no legal basis in law for the suit he filed.
After listening to the lawyers’ arguments, the judge adjourned the suit for judgement. The judge said a date for the verdict would be communicated to the parties.
