By James Ogunnaike, Abeokuta
The National Vice Chairman, (South West) of the Labour Party, Abayomi Arabambi, has issued a pre-action demand letter to the refers to the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, demanding a public retraction, apology and ₦50 billion in compensation over an alleged defamatory statement made during a podcast interview.
The demand, was contained in a letter dated July 3, 2026, and issued by Neplus Ultra Attorneys and signed by Anderson U. Asemota, Peter O. Asimegbe and Stanley C. Eziefulle on behalf of Arabambi.
According to the letter, the legal action stems from comments allegedly made by Obi during an interview, where he was said to have stated that Arabambi “does not have an address.”
Arabambi’s legal team argued that the statement was false, malicious and defamatory, contending that it portrayed their client as a faceless individual, lacking legitimacy, credibility and standing in public life.
The lawyers maintained that the interview was subsequently circulated across television stations and multiple digital platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp, thereby exposing their client to widespread public ridicule.
The letter reads, “Our Client has had a known residential and business address, maintains professional and political affiliations within Nigeria and has never been a person whose whereabouts or identity were unknown”.
It further argued that the publication damaged Arabambi’s reputation and subjected him to embarrassment and public ridicule.
“The ordinary and natural meaning which reasonable viewers attached to your publication was that our client is a faceless and unidentifiable person, has no known place of residence, lacks any legitimate standing in public life and is undeserving of public confidence,” the lawyers wrote.
The legal team also claimed that reactions generated on social media following the interview demonstrated that viewers understood the alleged remark as an attack on Arabambi’s identity and public credibility.
According to the solicitors, Obi, as a prominent political figure and NDC presidential candidate, ought to have exercised greater caution before making statements capable of damaging another person’s reputation.
The letter alleged that the circumstances surrounding the publication disclosed both express and implied malice, insisting that the statement was made with full appreciation of the audience it would reach.
“Our client has suffered considerable embarrassment, humiliation and injury to his reputation. The defamatory publication has impaired his standing in political and social circles and subjected him to needless attacks upon his integrity and personality,” the letter added.
As part of its demands, Arabambi’s legal team requested that Obi, within seven days of receiving the letter, issue “a clear, unequivocal and unconditional retraction” of the alleged defamatory statement on the same podcast or another platform of comparable reach.
The lawyers also demanded an “unreserved public apology” to be broadcast on national television and published on Obi’s verified social media platforms, as well as full-page apologies in Vanguard, The Punch, The Guardian, THISDAY and The Nation newspapers.
In addition, Arabambi is demanding the payment of ₦50 billion, as compensation for what he described as injury to his reputation, dignity, political standing and public image.
The letter further requested a written undertaking from Obi to refrain from making any further allegedly defamatory statements against Arabambi and directed him to preserve all materials relating to the podcast interview, including video recordings, transcripts, correspondence, electronic communications and digital metadata, warning that any destruction or alteration of evidence could be relied upon in future court proceedings.
The solicitors warned that failure to comply with the demands within seven days would leave their client with no option but to institute legal proceedings seeking declarations that the publication was defamatory, general, aggravated and exemplary damages, a perpetual injunction restraining further publication of similar statements, an order compelling a public retraction and apology, interest on monetary awards and the cost of the suit.
“Our Client would have preferred that this unfortunate episode be resolved without recourse to litigation. However, the protection of one’s reputation is a right recognised by law and cannot be surrendered in the face of a false and damaging publication,” the lawyers stated.
