Buratai Sues Ali-Keffi for ₦1bn Over Alleged Terrorism Defamation

Former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai (retd.), has instituted a ₦1 billion defamation suit against another retired senior military officer, Maj. Gen. Danjuma Hamisu Ali-Keffi (retd.), before the Kaduna State High Court.

The suit, filed on January 8, 2026, at the Kaduna Judicial Division of the High Court, accuses Ali-Keffi of making and circulating allegedly false, malicious and defamatory statements linking Gen Buratai to terrorism financing, Boko Haram suspects, and the illegal release and concealment of terror suspects.

Buratai, through his counsel, A.I. Aliyu and A.M. Hassan of Law Plus Consult, is seeking declarations that the statements credited to the defendant and published on several online platforms, including Sahara Reporters and other news and social media outlets, are defamatory and injurious to his reputation.

According to court documents, the plaintiff contends that the defendant granted interviews in 2025 in which he allegedly insinuated that Buratai had links to terror suspects and financiers, and that he was involved in conspiracies to cover up terrorism-related activities during his tenure as Chief of Army Staff.

The former army chief maintains that the publications were widely circulated online and on social media platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp and Instagram, giving the allegations national and international reach.

In his statement of claim, Buratai described the allegations as entirely false, stressing that he has never been investigated, indicted or convicted for terrorism, terrorism financing or any related offence.

He argued that the statements portrayed him as corrupt, unpatriotic and complicit in acts inimical to Nigeria’s national security, thereby gravely damaging his reputation, honour and standing locally and internationally.

He further alleged that the defendant acted recklessly and maliciously, despite admitting in the same publications that no investigation had established Buratai’s involvement in terrorism financing.

Buratai is asking the court to order Ali-Keffi to immediately retract the alleged defamatory statements and publish an unreserved public apology with equal prominence in Sahara Reporters, two national newspapers, and on all social media platforms where the statements were circulated.

The plaintiff is claiming ₦1 billion as general damages for libel and injury to reputation, citing the gravity of terrorism-related allegations, the wide circulation of the publications, and the defendant’s status as a retired senior military officer.

In addition, Buratai is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further publishing or repeating the alleged defamatory statements, as well as an order compelling him to pay the full cost of the suit, including solicitor’s fees.

The writ of summons directs Ali-Keffi to enter an appearance within 21 days of service, failing which the court may proceed to hear the matter in his absence.

As of the time of filing this report, no date has been fixed for the commencement of hearing, and the defendant has not filed a response to the suit.

THE SIEGE ENDS: FG WITHDRAWS CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI‑UDUAGHAN.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com

“A Landmark Victory for Free Speech, Justice, and the Rule of Law in Nigeria.”

On January 4, 2026, the Federal Government of Nigeria formally withdrew the criminal defamation and cyberbullying charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan, the lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, ending a legal saga that had gripped national attention for over six months. This case was more than a legal contest; it symbolized the tension between state power, political rivalry, and the fundamental democratic rights of elected officials and citizens.

The withdrawal was formalized through a Notice of Discontinuance, filed on December 12, 2025, and endorsed by the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, officially ending Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025. Signed on behalf of the Attorney‑General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi, SAN, the notice invoked Sections 108(1), 108(2)(a), and 108(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

This outcome reflects a rare acknowledgment by the government that prosecutorial power must not be abused for political ends, and it marks a pivotal moment for Nigeria’s fragile democratic institutions.

The Story Behind the Case.
The criminal defamation case stemmed from comments Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan made in a televised interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today, in which she alleged that her life was under threat due to her public disagreements with Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello. Instead of investigating her claims of threats, the government accused her of defamation under Section 391 of the Penal Code, Cap 89, Laws of the Federation, 1990, alleging that her statements could harm reputations.

This legal strategy drew immediate criticism from scholars, civil society, and international observers. Critics argued that using criminal law to silence a senator for reporting threats was a blatant misuse of state power and a serious infringement on free expression.

Professor Akin L. Okeowo, a constitutional law expert, stated: “Criminal defamation laws are relics of a bygone era. Modern democracies increasingly recognize that they are incompatible with freedom of speech and political accountability.” The case, therefore, became a national debate about the limits of state power and the protection of dissenting voices.

A Career Marked by Courage.
Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan has long been a symbol of political courage. A former lawyer and development economist, she entered the national spotlight by advocating for marginalized communities, especially in Kogi State. She is one of the few female senators who consistently challenge entrenched political hierarchies, raising issues ranging from governance transparency to gender inclusion in politics.

Her legislative track record includes championing bills on women’s rights, anti-corruption reforms, and social welfare, earning her both respect and criticism from political heavyweights. This case, some analysts argue, was less about law and more about silencing a politically inconvenient voice.

Criminal Defamation in Nigeria: A Historical Context.
Nigeria’s criminal defamation laws have a long and controversial history. Initially intended to protect personal reputations, these laws have frequently been weaponized against journalists, activists, and political opponents. Over the decades, several high-profile prosecutions have drawn condemnation for undermining free expression and chilling public discourse.

The law permits imprisonment for statements considered damaging to reputations, a practice widely criticized by human rights groups. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has repeatedly urged African states, including Nigeria, to review criminal defamation laws, emphasizing that they should not suppress political critique or civic activism.

The withdrawal of the charges against Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan, therefore, is significant: it signals a rare instance where the state recognized the misuse of law in a politically charged context.

National and International Reactions.
Civil society organizations were quick to commend the government’s decision. Dr. Oby Ezekwesili, a former Minister of Education, hailed the withdrawal as a “step toward protecting democratic norms and ensuring that political speech is not criminalized.” Media freedom advocates also pointed out that the case highlighted the fragility of Nigeria’s press and political discourse, noting that the judiciary had acted to prevent a dangerous precedent.

International observers welcomed the development, emphasizing that freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. Analysts note that the world is closely watching Nigeria’s handling of political dissent, with implications for foreign relations, investment, and the perception of Nigeria as a democracy.

The Political Implications.
The case carried undeniable political overtones. Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan is a member of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the main opposition party, and her vocal criticisms of government policies had positioned her as a target for political retaliation. The prosecution was widely interpreted as an attempt to intimidate opposition voices in the Senate and signal that dissent could have legal consequences.

Dr. Ifeanyi Eze, a political analyst, noted: “The true test of a democracy is not how the government treats loyalists, but how it treats critics. Using criminal law to silence elected representatives is an affront to the principles of governance.”

The withdrawal, therefore, is a significant victory for democratic accountability, demonstrating that even high-profile government-backed prosecutions can be reversed when they conflict with constitutional principles.

What the Withdrawal Means.
The AGF’s decision to discontinue the case represents a calculated exercise of prosecutorial discretion under Nigerian law. It prevents the state from using the courts as instruments of political repression and reinforces the principle that no public official, regardless of position, can manipulate the judicial system for personal or political gain.

Senior legal experts, including Barrister Chukwuma Onwudiwe, have emphasized that the withdrawal is symbolic as much as it is legal: “It demonstrates that the courts and the AGF can act in the interest of justice, not political expediency.”

While the criminal charges have been discontinued, pending civil defamation suits, including a ₦200 billion claim filed by Senate President Akpabio, remain. Nevertheless, the criminal case’s withdrawal ensures that Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan’s fundamental rights have been restored, and she can now focus on legislative duties and advocacy without fear of imprisonment.

A Test of Democratic Maturity.
The withdrawal of the criminal defamation case against Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan is a defining moment for Nigeria’s democracy. It underscores the delicate balance between state authority and individual rights, between political rivalry and judicial fairness. In a nation where justice is sometimes wielded as a weapon, this outcome signals that constitutional freedoms (especially the right to speak out) can prevail against misuse of power.

Legal scholars emphasize that this decision is symbolic. As Professor Akin L. Okeowo notes, “Democracy is tested not when the powerful speak, but when dissenting voices are protected.” How Nigeria treats its critics is a litmus test of its commitment to democratic principles, accountability, and rule of law.

This case also highlights the urgent need to modernize Nigeria’s defamation laws, ensuring they protect reputations without stifling political discourse or legitimate criticism of government officials.

Ultimately, this development sends a clear message: while political disagreements are inevitable, democracy thrives when citizens can raise concerns, challenge authority, and hold leaders accountable without fear of state reprisal. Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan’s victory is not merely personal. It is a victory for justice, freedom and the resilience of Nigerian democracy.

Peter Obi’s Defection to ADC: A Defining Moment in Nigeria’s Struggle Against Poverty, Disunity, and Democratic Decay.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“Why Nigeria’s Former Presidential Candidate Chose a New Political Path, What It Means for National Unity, and the Battle for 2027.”

On December 31, 2025, Nigeria witnessed a politically seismic shift: Peter Obi, the former Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections and former Governor of Anambra State, formally defected to the African Democratic Congress (ADC). In a stirring declaration made in Enugu, Obi not only changed his political affiliation but also articulated a powerful moral indictment of Nigeria’s leadership class, accusing it of economic mismanagement, corrosive division, and democratic erosion. His move calls for national unity, transcending ethnic and party boundaries, to confront what he described as the forces that have looted Nigeria into poverty and undermined its democratic promise.

Nigeria’s Existential Crisis: Poverty, Disunity and Democratic Decline

At the heart of Obi’s defection is a sobering diagnosis of Nigeria’s current socio-economic predicament. In his address, Obi described Nigeria as a nation “in deep distress,” where over 130 million Nigerians live in multidimensional poverty and more than 80 million youths remain unemployed—a human catastrophe that has cast a pall over the hopes of an entire generation.

These statistics, while staggering, reflect a deeper systemic failure. According to the World Bank, Nigeria has persistently battled high poverty rates and youth unemployment, even as it remains one of Africa’s most resource-rich nations. Structural challenges such as weak governance, corruption, and institutional paralysis have contributed to a reality where economic growth has not translated into broad-based prosperity. Obi’s critique resonates with leading development scholars like Professor Paul Collier, who has argued that poverty in Africa today is often rooted not in resource scarcity but in governance failures that stifle human potential.

Obi’s assessment aligns with this scholarship: “Nigeria is not poor; we are looted into poverty.” It is a deliberate moral indictment, asserting that Nigeria’s wealth has been systematically siphoned away by elites who prioritise self-enrichment over public service.

The Political Realignment: Beyond Party Loyalty to National Rescue. What makes Obi’s defection particularly significant is the context of his political journey. After his strong and unprecedented showing in the 2023 presidential election (where he galvanized millions of Nigerians, especially youths and urban professionals) Obi remained a symbolic figure in the country’s political landscape. Initially, he stayed within the Labour Party, even as defections and internal crises weakened its structure.

However, Obi’s engagement with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) began long before the formal defection. For months, he was part of a broader coalition of opposition forces that chose the ADC as their political platform for the 2027 general election. Political analysts noted that Obi’s approach was not conventional party-switching but a strategic alliance-building effort aimed at uniting disparate opposition voices against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

In Enugu, Obi emphasised that this move is guided “solely by patriotism and national interest.” He called on his supporters, the Obidient Movement, and opposition leaders from across Nigeria to embrace a “broad national coalition” under ADC. This message is not simply electoral and it is ideological: that Nigeria must repair its broken political culture through unity rather than tribalism or tokenism.

Unity as a Strategic and Moral Imperative. Obi’s speech resonated with deep moral urgency. He did not frame his decision merely as a tactical manoeuvre but as a moral imperative. “ Nigeria is not collapsed, but severely betrayed,” he declared, emphasising that the nation’s problems are not intractable but stem from poor leadership and lack of consensus on national priorities.

His use of language (calling on Nigerians to dismantle entrenched systems of greed and division) reflects the broader intellectual traditions of African leaders who have championed unity against fragmentation. For instance, Kwame Nkrumah once stated, “We face neither East nor West; we face forward,” urging Africans to pursue unity in the face of external and internal pressures. Obi’s invocation of unity evokes this enduring legacy, challenging Nigerians to see beyond ethnic politics and short-term gain.

Moreover, Obi’s focus on electoral integrity as non-negotiable underscores the growing concern that Nigeria’s democratic process must be reformed to truly reflect the will of its people. His warning to those plotting to manipulate the 2027 elections aligns with global democratic norms emphasised by scholars like Larry Diamond, who identifies free and fair elections as essential to legitimate governance.

Reactions and Political Ripples. The implications of Obi’s defection have reverberated across Nigeria’s political terrain. The Labour Party, while publicly characterising Obi’s departure as a “blessing” and an opportunity for internal renewal, also apologised to Nigerians for its perceived failures after the 2023 election. The party’s statement suggests both introspection and a desire to rebuild its identity separate from Obi’s political magnetism.

On the other hand, critics from the ruling party view Obi’s move with scepticism. For example, the Lagos APC described the defection to ADC as “political promiscuity masquerading as principle,” implying that such alliances lack ideological coherence. Such pushback highlights the entrenched resistance within Nigeria’s political class to any realignment perceived as threatening to the status quo.

The Stakes for 2027 and Beyond. As Nigeria heads toward the 2027 general elections, Obi’s defection sets the stage for a dramatically reconfigured opposition landscape. The ADC, long a minor party, now finds itself at the centre of a coalition that could redefine political contestation in Nigeria. Scholars of African politics like Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe have argued that new political coalitions (when rooted in shared national purpose rather than personality cults) can serve as catalysts for democratic renewal.

Obi’s road ahead is not without challenges. Questions remain about the internal dynamics of the coalition, the balance between ideological cohesion and electoral pragmatism, and the capacity of the alliance to win over Nigeria’s diverse electorate.

Nevertheless, Obi’s message is clear: Nigeria’s salvation lies in unity, accountability, and visionary leadership. His defection to the ADC is not merely a change of party, it is an invitation to Nigerians to reclaim their nation from mediocrity and fragmentation.

In Summary: A New Chapter or Historic Turning Point? Peter Obi’s defection to the African Democratic Congress represents more than a personal political move—it is a declaration of national purpose. At a time when poverty, insecurity, and civic disillusionment threaten to erode Nigeria’s democratic fabric, Obi’s call for unity is a rallying cry with moral clarity and political urgency.

Whether this moment will mark the true beginning of a new national consensus or simply another chapter in Nigeria’s turbulent political saga remains to be seen. However, Obi’s defection undeniably reframes the discourse: Nigeria’s struggle is no longer just about elections, but it is about the soul of the nation. This is a story worth watching, worth engaging with, and worth defining the future of Nigeria itself.