APC Chieftain Arabambi Slams Peter Obi With ₦50 Billion Defamation Demand

The National Vice Chairman (South West) of the Labour Party, Abayomi Arabambi, has accused Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate Peter Obi of defaming him through remarks allegedly made during a recent podcast interview.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

In a pre-action letter issued by his legal team, Arabambi claimed Obi stated that he “does not have an address,” a comment he argues was false, damaging and intended to ridicule him before the public.

Through his lawyers, Arabambi is demanding a public retraction, an unconditional apology and ₦50 billion in damages over the alleged defamatory statement.

The demand, contained in a letter dated July 3, 2026, was issued by Neplus Ultra Attorneys and signed by Anderson U. Asemota, Peter O. Asimegbe and Stanley C. Eziefulle.

According to the solicitors, Obi’s alleged remarks portrayed their client as an anonymous individual lacking credibility, legitimacy and standing in public life.

The legal team further argued that the interview was widely circulated on television and across social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp, exposing Arabambi to public ridicule.

“Our Client has had a known residential and business address, maintains professional and political affiliations within Nigeria and has never been a person whose whereabouts or identity were unknown,” the letter stated.

The lawyers maintained that the publication injured Arabambi’s reputation and subjected him to embarrassment, claiming reasonable viewers would interpret the alleged remark as suggesting he was a faceless individual with no legitimate place in public life.

They also argued that reactions on social media indicated that many people viewed the statement as an attack on Arabambi’s identity and public credibility.

According to the legal team, Obi, as a prominent political figure and presidential candidate, should have exercised greater caution before making statements capable of harming another person’s reputation.

The solicitors further alleged that the circumstances surrounding the publication suggested both express and implied malice, arguing that the statement was made with full knowledge of the audience it would reach.

“Our client has suffered considerable embarrassment, humiliation and injury to his reputation. The defamatory publication has impaired his standing in political and social circles and subjected him to needless attacks upon his integrity and personality,” the letter added.

Among its demands, the legal team asked Obi to issue, within seven days, “a clear, unequivocal and unconditional retraction” of the alleged statement on the same podcast or another platform with similar reach.

The lawyers also requested an unreserved public apology to be aired on national television, published on Obi’s verified social media accounts and carried as full-page advertisements in Vanguard, The Punch, The Guardian, THISDAY and The Nation newspapers.

In addition, Arabambi is seeking ₦50 billion as compensation for the alleged damage to his reputation, dignity, political standing and public image.

The letter further requested that Obi preserve all materials connected to the podcast interview, including video recordings, transcripts, correspondence, electronic communications and digital metadata, warning that any destruction or alteration of evidence could be raised in future legal proceedings.

The solicitors warned that if the demands are not met within seven days, their client would initiate legal action seeking declarations that the publication was defamatory, as well as general, aggravated and exemplary damages, a perpetual injunction, a court-ordered public retraction and apology, interest on any monetary award and the cost of litigation.

“Our Client would have preferred that this unfortunate episode be resolved without recourse to litigation. However, the protection of one’s reputation is a right recognised by law and cannot be surrendered in the face of a false and damaging publication,” the lawyers stated.