By Maduabuchi Idam Esq
Instead of yielding to Mr. Peter Obi’s demand to retract his statements, Barr. Deji of Counsel has flamed the presidential hopeful with more invectives. He is resolved, by his disposition, to prove his claim.
Keenly followed his interview on August 29, 2025 with Channels Television, I have presented some “unsolicited” legal opinion on the now topical issues— just for public consumption.
The excerpts of the Lawyer’s comment on live Television reads:
“…Obi invited me after I expressed my views on political issues which favoured him, he asked that I work for him and I said no because I do not work for any politician, I was leaving after my meeting, he handed me an envelope and said it was my transportation for coming, I declined the offer…It is not true that he doesn’t give shishi, he attempted to bribe me, he is not who he says he is”
Relentless in his attrition against the former governor, he claimed in several fora that, Mr. Peter Obi is a “rogue”who invested Anambra State’s money in Fidelity Bank where he had vested interests. He describes such an action as Mr. Obi’s—a “crime of conflict of interests”.
I saw in his tone, perhaps wrongly, vengeance and retribution, rather than “provable” facts offered with an honest desire to establish a defence of justification—in law. I mean such a fact which would at the end of the trial, give him a ride to walk home with the litany of the invective remarks he had made against Mr. Peter Obi without consequences.
However, Counsel’s facial expression must be commended. He seemed honest, especially as he sat piously with his leg crossed as a Pentecostal preacher, pontificating before the Channels TV host as an angel who is incapable of hurting a fly.
Counsel may have thought he was speaking from the pulpit where logic is considered as rebellion. He chose to sermonize, instead of put up a tenable defence, since he would not quietly retract his comments and have us move on with several other issues distracting our attention from President Tinubu’s strange urge for foreign loans. Begrudge me not, if Counsel is reserving his defence for the court process when he is eventually summoned to court.
I have formulated two issues from his Television interview and shall attempt to examine their veracity as defence of justification in a defamation action.
Whether the “offer of an envelope (money) as transportation” or as “thanks for all you do” assuming it is established, can be interpreted to mean bribery, in order to justify the tag given by Barr. Deji to Mr. Obi as a rogue”
Whether the claim if successfully established, that Mr. Obi invested Anambra State’s money in the bank he had vested interest in, can suffice to justify Barr. Deji’s scandalous remarks.
My fair legal opinion :
On Issue 1:
Bribery and Corruption is the alleged offence against Mr. Peter Obi by Barr. Deji of Counsel, on this issue.
On this note, I have taken the liberty to again read through the applicable criminal jurisprudence as it concerns bribery and corruption. Sections 115-119 of the Penal Code Act (PCA) describes bribery and corruption as the conduct of a public servant taking gratification in respect of an official Act. The Criminal Code Act(CCA) did not disagree with the definition. See sections 98 -99 of the Criminal Code Act.
The forgoing not withstanding, the Provision of Section 13 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offense Act(CPROA) provides that “Any Person who corruptly gives, confers or procures any property or benefit of any kind to a public officer or any other person commits an offense” This provision, to my mind, does not contradict the the provision of the Criminal Code and the Penal Code earlier cited.
A community reading of the above provisions, suggests that bribery and corruption is an offense that concerns or relates to a public officer (Public servant) . On who a Public Officer is, the summary definition of a Public Servant according to the Public Service Rules 2021, is a person subject to the employment of the government of Nigeria. Thus, a public servant must have been offered money or he must have accepted money or gratification to fetter or influence his official act, for the offence of Bribery and Corruption to have been committed.
This position was affirmed by the Court in Biobaku Vs. Police (1951) 20 NLR 30, where the court described bribery and corruption as “ the receiving and offering of some benefits, rewards or some inducement, to sway or deflect a person employed in public service from the honest discharge of his duties”
Similarly, the case of FRN VS. Farouk Lawan. SC. 881 /2022 offers a clearer view when the Supreme Court rightly upheld the five years jail terms of Farouk Lawan, a former member of the House of Representatives, for accepting the sum of $500,000 from Femi Otedola in order to absorb Otedola’s company Zenon Petroleum and Gas Limited of wrong doing in a fuel subsidy corruption probe. This cases points to the facts that Corruption is an offense committed when a public officer receives money or gratification to fetter his discretion.
The forgoing explanation in mind, it is not disputed that Barr. Deji Adeyanju was not and still not a public servant when the alleged meeting where Mr. Obi purportedly offered him money was held—Whether or not the offer of money was made at all or corruptly made (in the contemplation of CPROA), same must be established not only by viva voce evidence especially as the allegation is one for crime of “bribery and corruption” which requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt just like any other criminal allegation.
On this note, it is my humble view that, it will be legally difficult to cloth a “thank you” offer of gift, (if ever made), with the garment of Bribery and corruption, going by the authorities set out above . I am also not sure morality is in any way against such a gift. Therefore, attempting to rely on this head of defence to justify his defamatory remarks, would definitely be challenging.
On Issue 2:
Barr. Deji seems to have been mislead or lured by the imaginary crime or “political allegation” created by political opponents to haunt Mr. Peter Obi’s ambition.
The allegations of “crime of conflict of interest” which according to Barr. Deji, was committed by Mr. Obi when he was the Governor of Anambra state, by investing the state’s money into a bank he had vested interest in.
I will quickly point that, the criminal laws cited above: the PCA, CCA and the CPROA does not reorganize a crime known as conflict of interests. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any legislation passed prior to the said investment in Mr. Peter Obi’s Anambra State that criminalize such an investment and if any, Bar. Deji who is not affected by the investment, not being an indigene of the state, may lack the requisite locus standi to successfully establish his allegation.
CONCLUSION
Except Counsel’s defense(s) are built on truth which he has not made public, he may need to consider a retraction now. Authorities are in support that an unsubstantiated allegation, cannot suffice as a defense to defamation. See the case of MacMacus Vs. Beckham (2022)1WLR 2982 where the Court held that in a Defamatory case, the Defendant has the onus to demonstrate the factual accuracy of the defamatory word, requiring tangible evidence that the essence of the defamation is rooted in truth.
M. O. Idam
