ENUGU, Nigeria (VOICE OF NAIJA)- The National Vice Chairman (South-West) of the Labour Party, Abayomi Arabambi, has demanded a public apology, retraction and N50 billion in damages from the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, over an alleged defamatory remark made during a podcast interview.
The demands were contained in a pre-action letter dated July 3, 2026, 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 solicitors, the dispute arose from comments allegedly made by Obi during the interview, in which he was quoted as saying that Arabambi “does not have an address.”
The legal team described the statement as false, malicious and defamatory, arguing that it portrayed their client as a faceless individual lacking legitimacy, credibility and standing in public life.
The lawyers further stated that the interview was subsequently circulated by television stations and widely shared across several digital platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp, thereby exposing Arabambi to public ridicule and reputational damage.
READ ALSO: INEC Begins Verification Of Labour Party Secretariat, Structures
Part of 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.”
The solicitors argued that the publication had injured their client’s reputation and subjected him to embarrassment and public ridicule.
They added: “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.”
According to the legal team, reactions on social media following the podcast indicated that many viewers interpreted the alleged statement as an attack on Arabambi’s identity and credibility as a public figure.
The lawyers further contended that Obi, being a prominent political figure and the NDC’s presidential candidate, ought to have exercised greater caution before making comments capable of damaging another person’s reputation.
They also alleged that both the circumstances surrounding the publication and the manner in which it was made pointed to express and implied malice.
“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 stated.
As part of the demands, the solicitors gave Obi seven days to issue a clear, unequivocal and unconditional retraction of the alleged defamatory statement on the same podcast or another platform with comparable audience reach.
They also demanded an unreserved public apology to be aired on national television, published on Obi’s verified social media accounts and printed as full-page apologies in Vanguard, The Punch, The Guardian, THISDAY and The Nation newspapers.
In addition, Arabambi is seeking N50 billion as compensation for the alleged damage to his reputation, dignity, political standing and public image.
The legal team also requested a written undertaking from Obi, committing him not to make any further allegedly defamatory statements against their client.
READ ALSO: Labour Party Presidential Candidate Agada Dumps Party, Joins YPP
They further directed him to preserve every material connected with the podcast interview, including video recordings, transcripts, correspondence, electronic communications and digital metadata, warning that any destruction or alteration of such evidence could be relied upon in subsequent legal proceedings.
The solicitors warned that failure to comply with the demands within the stipulated seven days would leave their client with no option but to commence legal action seeking declarations that the publication was defamatory, general, aggravated and exemplary damages, a perpetual injunction restraining further similar publications, an order compelling a public retraction and apology, interest on any monetary award and the cost of the suit.
The letter concluded: “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.”