A Nigerian senator wins court injunction against sustained social media defamation, halting posts by activist Dr Sandra Duru and Meta Platforms pending trial.
A Federal High Court in the Federal Capital Territory has issued a landmark interlocutory injunction restraining United Kingdom-based activist Dr Sandra Duru, popularly known as “Prof Mgbeke,” and Meta Platforms Inc., operators of Facebook, from circulating materials alleged to be defamatory against Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The ruling, delivered by Justice I. Mohammed in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, follows a motion on notice filed by the senator, seeking urgent judicial intervention over what she described as repeated and damaging online attacks targeting her character.
According to the court, the application raised serious issues for trial and required immediate action to prevent irreparable harm to the claimant’s reputation.
In his judgment, Justice Mohammed emphasized that the injunction was protective, not punitive, designed to prevent ongoing defamation and preserve the status quo pending the substantive suit.
The court held that Akpoti-Uduaghan had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation, showing evidence of reputational harm that could not be adequately remedied by financial compensation alone.
The court ordered the first defendant, Dr Sandra Duru, “either by herself, her agents, privies, or however called, to refrain from publishing, sharing, posting, promoting, or disseminating on Facebook or any other social media platform any content that is defamatory, scandalous, inciteful, or injurious against the claimant, pending the determination of the substantive suit.”
Similarly, Meta Platforms Inc. was directed to immediately remove or disable access to all offensive publications, posts, or broadcasts made by Duru, whether under her real name or the pseudonym “Prof Mgbeke.”
The court also mandated that Meta preserve all electronic evidence related to the dispute, including content, metadata, and digital footprints connected to the offending posts, to aid in the fair resolution of the case.
Justice Mohammed underscored that injunctions like these are “preservatory in nature,” meant to prevent irreversible damage and maintain fairness until the court reaches a final judgment.
The judge noted that the balance of convenience strongly favored the claimant, citing the volume and persistence of the alleged defamatory posts, which reportedly numbered over thirty between May and October 2025.
The court observed that these publications had gone viral, exposing Akpoti-Uduaghan to public hostility, security threats, and emotional trauma.
“Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan faces sustained reputational injury, which could continue if no protective measures are taken,” the ruling noted, emphasizing the urgent need to halt further dissemination of the alleged defamatory content.
Meta’s role was also addressed, with the court acknowledging that the claimant had formally notified the social media platform about specific posts and links.
Justice Mohammed stated that the platform’s inaction could have “enabled the continued accessibility of defamatory materials and facilitated further attacks,” raising serious legal questions for trial.
The ruling represents a significant judicial intervention in Nigeria’s evolving digital rights landscape.
Experts say it reinforces the responsibilities of both individuals and social media platforms to curb online abuse, while ensuring that citizens’ constitutional rights to dignity, reputation, and privacy are protected.
The dispute originated eight months earlier when Duru released what she claimed were phone conversation recordings implicating Akpoti-Uduaghan in allegedly false accusations against the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio.
During a Facebook Live session, monitored by reporters, Duru alleged that the senator attempted to bribe her with N200 million to make false claims against the former Akwa Ibom State governor.
Duru insisted that her recordings disproved the sexual harassment allegations against Akpabio and described it as “malicious” for Akpoti-Uduaghan to link him to the death of a young girl who died several years ago.
The activist further claimed that the senator was intentionally attempting to tarnish reputations and had no credible evidence to support her allegations.
While the claims themselves remain contested, the Federal High Court’s ruling makes clear that defamatory content—whether true or alleged—can cause serious and irreparable reputational harm if left unchecked online.
By granting the injunction, the court is ensuring that the parties’ dispute will be resolved in a controlled legal setting, rather than through viral social media campaigns.
Legal analysts describe the decision as a precedent-setting case for social media regulation and accountability in Nigeria, highlighting how courts can protect citizens from sustained defamation while balancing the rights of free expression.
The injunction ensures that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reputation is shielded from further attacks until the substantive suit is heard and determined.
Ireport247news
About The Author
