{"id":7592,"date":"2026-07-16T14:36:07","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T14:36:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/?p=7592"},"modified":"2026-07-16T15:56:52","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T15:56:52","slug":"the-legal-framework-safeguard-of-winding-up-in-nigeria-copy-copy-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/?p=7592","title":{"rendered":"ALPHA & ROHI secures victory for Ex-Minister Of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, at the High Court of The Federal Capital Territory in the libel suit against EFCC as Court Orders Retraction, Apology, and N10 Million Damage against EFCC."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\"\"
Hands tied with a rope<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>\n\n\n\n

Former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory recently delivered a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for media reportage and publications by law enforcement agencies saddled with investigative responsibilities.

The Court had found that a publication by the EFCC which alleged that Dr. Olu Agunloye, a former Minister of Power and Steel was arraigned over a “$6 billion fraud” was false, defamatory, maliciously published, and bore no basis in the actual criminal charges brought against the former minister.

This is a great win for the ALPHA & ROHI team, as the Judgment contains judicial pronouncements in novel areas of defamation.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A.<\/strong> FACTS OF THE CASE<\/strong> :-

The Suit revolved around a publication dated 10th January 2024, which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission published on her official website and verified X (formerly Twitter) account under the headline: “EFCC Arraigns Agunloye Over $6 Billion Fraud.”
Dr. Agunloye briefed the firm to file a civil suit bothering on defamation on his behalf. Pursuant to the instruction of our client, we filed Suit No: FCT\/HC\/CV\/1199\/24<\/strong> wherein we contended that, the publication presented a false narrative which portrayed our client as a corrupt public officer embroiled in massive fraud.
We also argued that the statement inflicted substantial damage on our client\u2019s personal reputation, professional standing, and public image.
On our client\u2019s behalf, we sought judicial declarations of defamation, order for retraction and apology, as well as monetary compensation in the sum of One billion Naira as general and exemplary damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


B. PUBLICATION OF EFCC FOUND TO BE A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the trial, EFCC presented a sole witness, an Assistant Commissioner of Police (Umar Hussain Babangida). The witness initially denied knowledge of the defamatory publication. However, the witness later admitted under cross-examination conducted by our Principal (Adeola Adedipe, SAN) that the publication originated from the Commission’s Media Department. This admission was critical in establishing the EFCC’s liability for the publication.
One of the pertinent issues before the court was whether the EFCC’s published description of the criminal case, against our client, on her social media platforms accurately reflected the pending charge. The court, after a detailed review of the criminal charge filed at the Apo Division of the FCT High Court, observed that none of the allegations contained in the charge sheet referred to a \u201c$6 billion fraud\u201d.
The court found that the term “fraud” did not appear in any of the exhibits tendered during the proceedings and described the EFCC’s caption and entire publication as “sensational” intended to attract media traction, to the detriment of our client. The Court further held that the publication failed to present a fair and accurate account of the criminal proceedings.

C<\/strong>. DEFENCES REJECTED BY THE COURT<\/strong>

In an attempt to exculpate herself, the EFCC attempted to rely on multifarious defences which appeared contradictory and inconsistent. The court clarified that our client\u2019s suit was not intended to obstruct the EFCC from carrying out its statutory mandate of investigating economic and financial crimes. Rather, the stanchion of the matter was whether the EFCC pushed the limits of her statutory powers by publishing inaccurate statements that negatively impacted our client’s reputation.
The court found that the EFCC failed to establish the truth of the publication, a recognized defence in actions on defamation. Notably, the Court determined we had successfully proven that the publication against our client was actuated by malice. This finding significantly bolstered client’s case.


D. PERFUNCTORY REVIEW OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION<\/strong>

<\/strong>In the judgment delivered by the Court, three essential pillars of defamation which a claimant must establish were highlighted, to wit:
that the statement was published in a permanent form;
that the publication referred specifically to the claimant;
that the publication was capable of lowering the claimant’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
The court held that all three elements were satisfactorily proved in our client\u2019s case. Furthermore, the Court found that, the statement remained publicly accessible on the EFCC’s digital platforms and unmistakably identified the former minister.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crucial Finding Of The Court<\/strong>
In granting reliefs in favour of our client, Dr. Olu Agunloye, the court made the following findings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was no mention of “$6 billion” in the counts proffered against Dr. Agunloye;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EFCC failed to discharge the burden of proving the truth of the defamatory statement;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malice was established, as the EFCC knew through its investigation that no “$6 billion fraud” charge existed, yet proceeded to publish the statement; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All essential elements of defamation were established on our client\u2019s behalf as the statement was published in permanent form, and it referred to Dr. Agunloye (the erstwhile Minister of Power), exposing him to shame and ridicule. The Publication was indeed injurious to the reputation of our client;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[
Reliefs Granted by the Court<\/strong>
Against the backdrop of the findings made by the Court, the following Reliefs were granted in favour of our client:
A DECLARATION\u00a0that the EFCC’s website post was false and defamatory;
AN ORDER\u00a0directing the EFCC to immediately retract the defamatory publication and tender unreserved apologies on its official website, allied online platforms, and in two national newspapers specifically\u00a0The Punch\u00a0and\u00a0The Guardian;
AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION\u00a0restraining the EFCC, whether by itself or through any media agents or privies, from further publishing the libelous statement or making any negative inferences against Agunloye’s reputation;
General damages of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira)\u00a0awarded as compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

G. Broader Implications Of The Judgment<\/strong>
The judgment reinforces the duty of public institutions to ensure their official communications accurately reflect the true state of affairs at every point. It underscores the principle that, criminal investigations and prosecutions do not grant law enforcement agencies a carte blanche, to publish false allegations against citizens subject to investigation.
Furthermore, the judgment stands as a testament that, the establishing Act of investigative agencies offers no protection when individuals are defamed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu AgunloyeThe High Court of the Federal Capital Territory recently delivered a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for media reportage and publications by law enforcement agencies saddled with investigative responsibilities. The Court had found that a publication by the EFCC which alleged that Dr. Olu Agunloye, a former Minister […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7608,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[86,91],"class_list":["post-7592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dispute-resolution-litigation-and-arbitration","tag-dispute-resolution-litigation-and-arbitration","tag-telecommunication-and-e-commerce"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7592"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7612,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7592\/revisions\/7612"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpharohi.com\/wp-ar\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}