Court dismisses Gani Adams’ N5bn defamation suit against Sunday Igboho

An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has dismissed a ₦5 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Chief Gani Adams, the Aare-Onakakanfo of Yorubaland, against Yoruba Nation activist Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho.

The ruling, delivered by Justice O.T. Ademola-Salami, not only struck out the suit but also awarded ₦500,000 in costs against Adams, in favour of Igboho.

The case, marked M/1006/2004, was centered on a claim by Adams that Igboho had violated his fundamental rights by allegedly recording a private telephone conversation without his consent — an act Adams argued was in breach of Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to privacy.

Through his counsel, Sikiru Akinrele, Adams sought the following declaration, “That it is unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional for the respondent to covertly record and publicly release or publish a private telephone conversation between the applicant and another person, without the consent and authority of the applicant.”

Adams requested a court declaration to affirm the illegality of recording private conversations without mutual consent, while also seeking monetary damages totaling ₦5 billion for alleged defamation and violation of privacy.

Igboho’s Defense

In opposition, Sunday Igboho’s lawyer, Junaid Sanusi, filed a counter-affidavit arguing that the affidavit submitted by Adams was invalid as it was not personally deposed by Adams or any authorised representative.

Sanusi also contended that the suit lacked merit and factual evidence showing that Adams’ phone had actually been tapped or recorded by his client.

The Verdict
After reviewing arguments from both sides, the court dismissed the case, citing procedural flaws in Adams’ application.

Justice Ademola-Salami stated, “The affidavit was defective as it was not personally deposed to by the applicant or an authorised person. Even if it were accepted, the applicant still failed to demonstrate convincingly that his telephone was intercepted or recorded by the respondent.”