A High Court in the Federal Capital Territory has issued a significant order silencing a former Abia State official amidst a massive defamation claim. Justice J.E. Obanor granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Barr. Eze Chikamnayo, the immediate past Commissioner for Information in Abia State, from publishing any allegedly defamatory statements against the state's governor, Dr. Alex Chioma Otti.
The Court's Restraining Order
The ruling, delivered on Thursday, December 18, 2025, is a prelude to the hearing of a substantive N100 billion defamation suit filed by Governor Otti. Justice Obanor explicitly ordered Chikamnayo to cease and desist from a wide range of activities. The prohibited actions include writing, sharing, circulating, broadcasting, or syndicating any defamatory content aimed at the governor.
The injunction covers all social and digital media platforms where Chikamnayo is active. Specifically mentioned were his Facebook wall (Iyierioba Chikamnayo), X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, and TikTok. The order also extends to traditional media outlets such as newspapers, radio, and television stations.
In her ruling, Justice Obanor stated, "Having carefully considered the application and all the processes before the Court, and there being no process challenging same, I am satisfied as to the need to grant the interlocutory order sought." The motion, numbered M/15807/2025, was therefore granted, with the orders to remain in force until the main suit is determined.
Background of the Legal Feud
The court's decision followed a motion filed by Governor Otti's legal team, led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Sonny Ajala. The lawyers accused Chikamnayo of persistently publishing offensive materials against the governor even after being formally served with the court processes on October 17, 2025.
Court documents reveal that between October 17 and October 31, 2025, the defendant allegedly authored and shared a series of posts on his Facebook page. These publications reportedly contained derogatory descriptions of Governor Otti. An affidavit sworn by Ifeanyi Michael Agbo, the practice manager at Deeplaw Associates, asserted that Chikamnayo, himself a legal practitioner, continued his actions despite full awareness of the pending lawsuit.
The governor's counsel argued that this conduct violated the doctrine of sub judice, which is designed to prevent public commentary that could prejudice a case before the court. Dr. Ajala further submitted that the actions contravened Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023, which obligates lawyers to avoid acts that obstruct justice.
The Substantive N100 Billion Claim
The core of the legal battle is the defamation suit itself, initiated on October 8, 2025. This action was precipitated by a demand letter dated October 2, 2025, which requested a retraction of the alleged defamatory publications. The defendant reportedly failed to comply with this request within the stipulated seven-day period.
In the suit, Governor Otti seeks a judicial declaration that his reputation, goodwill, and public standing have been severely injured by what he terms false and malicious publications. His claims include:
- N100 billion in damages for reputational injury and psychological trauma.
- A court order compelling Chikamnayo to publish an unreserved apology on his Facebook page and in selected national newspapers.
- A perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from future defamatory publications.
- N250 million as the cost of pursuing the legal action.
The court has adjourned the matter to January 19, 2026, for the hearing of the substantive suit. Earlier, on October 16, 2025, Justice Obanor had granted leave for the governor's legal team to serve court processes on Chikamnayo through substituted means. This included service via his Facebook wall and his phone and WhatsApp numbers, following indications that these were effective channels to reach him. The defendant was ordered to enter an appearance within 30 days of such service or risk a default judgment.
This case highlights the escalating tensions in Abia State's political landscape and sets a notable precedent on the limits of public commentary by political figures, especially when such commentary intersects with active litigation.
