₦1bn Defamation Suit Crashes in Yenagoa as Court Faults Amnesty Boss for Failure to Prove Claims
By Paul Ebi
Yenagoa — The High Court of Bayelsa State, sitting in Yenagoa, on Monday delivered a major legal blow to the Administrator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP), Chief Dennis Brutu Otuaro, dismissing his ₦1 billion defamation suit against journalist Akpos Passman and Tarakirivoice Newspaper Enterprise.
In a judgment delivered in Suit No. BHYCYHC/CV/182/2025, Justice Charlie Ebiyon Duke held that although the court had jurisdiction to entertain the case and that Tarakirivoice Newspaper Enterprise, as a registered business name, was properly sued, the claimant failed to meet the strict evidentiary threshold required to succeed in an action for defamation
Chief Otuaro had approached the court in May 2025, accusing the defendants of defaming him through two online publications and an accompanying WhatsApp voice note circulated in September 2024 and April 2025. The publications alleged financial impropriety in the administration of the Amnesty Programme. He sought declaratory reliefs, a perpetual injunction restraining further publications, public apologies across national newspapers and online platforms, and damages amounting to ₦1 billion.
At trial, the claimant called two witnesses and tendered three exhibits, including online printouts and a flash drive. The defendants, on their part, called one witness and denied authorship of the reports, arguing that the publications were not written by the first defendant and that the online platform accommodates multiple contributors.
In his ruling, Justice Duke carefully reviewed the essential elements of defamation under Nigerian law, emphasizing that a claimant must prove publication, reference to the claimant, defamatory meaning, publication to third parties, falsity of the statements, and absence of lawful justification.
While the court agreed that the publications referred to Chief Otuaro and were hosted on the second defendant’s platform, it found that the claimant failed on a critical requirement — proof of falsity.
“The claimant did not place credible evidence before the court to establish that the statements complained of were false,” Justice Duke ruled.The judge further held that the evidence led on alleged financial transactions amounted to hearsay, noting that Chief Otuaro himself did not enter the witness box to personally deny the allegations under cross-examination. On that basis, the court rejected one of the exhibits tendered by the claimant and dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Post-Judgment Arrest Allegations
In a dramatic post-judgment development, Akpos Passman alleged that he was accosted by armed police officers shortly after the ruling while standing along the Sani Abacha Expressway in Yenagoa.
According to Passman, he was taken to two police formations for questioning over a petition allegedly bearing Chief Otuaro’s name. He claimed he was released only after officers reviewed the certified copy of the court judgment and declined to proceed further with the matter.
Passman described the incident as an attempt at intimidation, though the allegation could not be independently verified as of press time. Police authorities had yet to issue an official statement on the claims.
Wider Accountability Questions
The court’s decision comes against the backdrop of heightened scrutiny of the Presidential Amnesty Programme. Earlier reports by Tarakirivoice detailed how the House of Representatives Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recently grilled Chief Otuaro over alleged financial irregularities running into ₦26 billion, uncovered in audit reports.
During the session, lawmakers placed the PAP administrator on oath and questioned his repeated failure to honour parliamentary invitations and submit requested documents. Although Otuaro denied wrongdoing and attributed his absences to security engagements in the Niger Delta and bureaucratic bottlenecks, the committee insisted that no public office holder is above legislative oversight.
The PAC has vowed to continue its probe, describing the investigation as one of the most critical accountability tests in the history of the Presidential Amnesty Programme.
Monday’s ruling is widely seen as a significant affirmation of the heavy evidentiary burden placed on public officials who seek to silence media reports through defamation suits, reinforcing the principle that allegations — especially those touching on public finance — must be disproved with clear and credible evidence, not conjecture.
