By joshua Okai Demands N2bn, Apology From Ododo Aide Over Alleged Defamation
Chief Austin Usman Okai has demanded N2bn in compensation from the Kogi State Government’s Senior Special Assistant on Cybercrime, Mr Promise Emmanuel, over alleged defamatory publications concerning a purported recorded conversation involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The demand was contained in a letter dated Friday and signed by Jerry Mendos Maikano, Esq., of Marshal Attorneys, on behalf of Okai.
The lawyer demanded an immediate retraction, an unqualified public apology and payment of N2bn over what he described as “false, malicious and grossly defamatory statements” published on social media.
According to the letter, Emmanuel, who uses the social media identity “Kogi Rebel”, allegedly made the publications on Facebook and other platforms on September 20 and 21, 2026.
The disputed posts allegedly claimed that Okai recorded and sold an audio conversation with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for hundreds of millions of naira and subsequently acquired a Mercedes-Benz and a 2025 Toyota Camry.
The letter quoted one of the publications as alleging that a “Kogi Comrade” had recorded a conversation with a top politician and sold it to another politician for hundreds of millions of naira.
The lawyer said the publications portrayed Okai as dishonest and willing to betray others for financial gain.
The letter stated that the allegations had been widely circulated on Facebook, X, WhatsApp and other social media platforms.
It further alleged that the publications had subjected Okai to public ridicule, embarrassment and reputational damage.
The lawyers rejected the allegations, describing them as “blatantly devoid of any factual foundation”.
They argued that the publications had portrayed their client as “dishonest, fraudulent, corrupt” and unworthy of public trust.
The letter also took issue with Emmanuel’s alleged reference to the purchase prices of the vehicles.
It said the defendant subsequently revised the alleged value of the Mercedes-Benz to between N35m and N40m, while putting the value of the Toyota Camry at about N25m.
In another alleged publication, Emmanuel reportedly stated that he would return with “comprehensive information” about the recorded-conversation controversy and invited the parties involved to negotiate with him.
The lawyers said the alleged statements amounted to a deliberate attack on their client’s character and reputation.
They further argued that the alleged publications were made without verification and with reckless disregard for the truth.
The letter cited Nigerian judicial authorities on defamation and argued that a defamatory publication may attract legal liability where its necessary elements are established. Nigerian case law also recognises publication to a third party as an essential issue in establishing libel.
The lawyers said Okai’s reputation was particularly important because of his roles as an activist, politician, community leader and philanthropist.
They consequently demanded the immediate removal and retraction of the alleged defamatory publications.
They also demanded a written public apology on all platforms where the statements were allegedly published.
The lawyers further demanded that the apology be given equal prominence and circulation, including publication in two national newspapers.
Beyond the apology, the legal team demanded N2bn as compensation for alleged emotional distress and reputational damage.
They also demanded a written undertaking from Emmanuel not to publish further allegedly defamatory material concerning their client.
The letter gave Emmanuel three days from the date of receipt to comply with the demands.
Failure to comply, the lawyers warned, would lead to legal action at the appropriate High Court.
They said the proposed action would include a claim for N5bn in exemplary and aggravated damages, injunctive relief and other remedies available under the law.
The lawyers also reserved their client’s right to pursue further reliefs arising from the alleged publications.
The allegations contained in the demand letter have not been tested or determined by a court, and the legal claims remain subject to proof and any defence that may be raised by Emmanuel.