A High Court in Nigeria's capital has ordered the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, to appear before it. He must respond to a major defamation lawsuit filed by a political rival.
Tonye Cole, the All Progressives Congress 2023 governorship candidate for Rivers State, is suing for forty billion naira. He claims Wike made false and damaging statements about him on national television.
The court issued a notice for the case on December 5, 2025. The case is scheduled for its first mention before Justice M. A. Hassan on December 9. Channels Television is also named as a defendant in the suit.
The lawsuit stems from Wike's live appearance on Channels Television's "Politics Today" program on September 18. Cole's legal team states the minister's comments were false and malicious.
They say the statements damaged Cole's personal, professional, and public reputation. Court filings indicate the remarks suggested Cole was involved in financial misconduct.
This included the management of state resources related to Rivers State gas assets and the Olympia Hotel. Cole argues these imputations of dishonesty have caused him significant harm.
He says he has suffered humiliation and mental anguish from the broadcast. His lawyers argue the publication was reckless and unfounded.
Tonye Cole is seeking substantial remedies from the court. His primary demand is forty billion naira in damages for the alleged harm to his reputation.
He is also asking for five hundred million naira to cover the costs of the litigation. Beyond financial compensation, Cole wants a judicial declaration.
He wants the court to formally state that Wike's comments were false and defamatory. He is also seeking court orders for a retraction and a public apology.
Cole's filings request that the defendants be compelled to delete the broadcast from all platforms. He wants an apology published on Channels Television and in five national newspapers.
Additionally, he seeks a perpetual injunction. This court order would restrain Wike and Channels Television from making similar statements about him in the future.
The court has ordered both defendants to enter an appearance within twenty-one days of receiving the legal writ.
This case highlights the legal balance between reputation and free speech. Defamation law protects a person's reputation from false statements.
In Nigeria, it is governed by both civil and criminal statutes. The law aims to draw a balance between protecting reputation and preserving freedom of expression.
Defamation is defined as a statement that lowers a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. It can make people shun or avoid the person being discussed.
There are two main types: libel and slander. Libel involves written or published words, while slander refers to spoken words.
Libel is generally considered more serious due to its permanent nature. It is often actionable without proof of specific financial loss.
Slander typically requires proof of actual damage, except in specific serious categories. These include imputations of a crime, a contagious disease, or professional unfitness.
To succeed, a claimant must prove several key elements. They must show a statement was published to a third party.
The statement must refer to the claimant and be capable of damaging their reputation. The claimant must also demonstrate they suffered harm as a result.
Recent legal precedent clarifies rules for certain evidence. A Supreme Court case from April 2025 addressed proving defamatory words spoken in local languages.
The court ruled the exact non-English words and their translation must be in the Statement of Claim. The meaning must be proved by an expert sworn interpreter during the trial.
The court also stated there is no requirement for the court's official record to be written in the vernacular. Nigerian court proceedings are recorded in English, the official language.
Individuals accused of defamation have several potential defenses under Nigerian law. Truth, or justification, is a complete defense if the statement is proven factual.
Fair comment protects honest opinions on matters of public interest. Privilege applies to statements made in specific official contexts, like parliamentary or court proceedings.
An offer of amends, such as publishing a correction, can also mitigate liability. Consent from the claimant is another full defense.
Legal scholars note an inherent tension in defamation law. It balances protecting personal reputation with preserving democratic free speech.
Both rights are considered fundamental in democratic societies. They are qualified rights, meaning they can be restricted under certain conditions.
Restrictions must meet tests of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity. In Nigeria, challenges include vague laws and the use of criminal defamation provisions.
Some experts argue criminal defamation can have a chilling effect on media and public discourse. There have been calls to abolish criminal defamation to better protect free expression.
This lawsuit between two prominent political figures is being closely watched. It tests the application of defamation law in Nigeria's vibrant and often contentious political sphere.
The case may clarify how courts handle defamation claims arising from televised political commentary. The high damages being sought are notable and could set a precedent.
The involvement of a major media outlet, Channels Television, adds another layer. It raises questions about broadcaster liability for statements made by guests during live interviews.
The court's decisions on injunctions and takedown orders will also be significant. They could affect how media platforms manage content alleged to be defamatory.
The case proceeds as Nigeria continues to debate the boundaries of free speech. It unfolds against a backdrop of calls for legal reform to balance reputation and expression more effectively.