Arabambi, Awofala Demand N120bn From YPP, Boot Party Chairmen Over Alleged Defamation
- Lawyers issue 48-hour ultimatum for retraction, apology
- Legal team threatens court action over allegations of threats, intimidation, surveillance
Comrade Abayomi Arabambi and Prince Awofala have demanded a total of ₦120 billion in damages from the Ogun State Chairmen of the Young Progressives Party (YPP) and Boot Party over what they described as “false, malicious, reckless, injurious and defamatory” allegations made against them in connection with the ongoing political and legal disputes surrounding the 2027 Ogun State governorship contest.
The demand, contained in a formal pre-action letter dated September 15, 2026, was issued through their solicitors, Lex Fortis LP, which demanded ₦60 billion each from the parties over the alleged defamatory statements and their subsequent publication.
The letter was addressed to the Chairman of the Boot Party in Ogun State, Arch. Akerele Abiodun John, while Hon. Adeyemi Solomon Oluwaseyifunmi, Chairman of the Young Progressives Party (YPP) in Ogun State, was also named as a principal defendant.
According to the solicitors, the two party chairmen allegedly made and circulated statements connecting Arabambi and Awofala with alleged “connivance” with legal representatives, misrepresentation of the position of parties in the litigation, intimidation, threats, undue pressure, surveillance and harassment.
The allegations were reportedly made during a media briefing held on September 9, 2026, concerning the discontinuance of proceedings relating to the 2027 Ogun State governorship contest.
The solicitors stated that the comments were subsequently published by news organisations under the headline, “OGUN 2027: YPP, BOOT PARTY REJECT WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT, ACCUSE YAYI CAMP OF MISREPRESENTATION.”
The legal representatives argued that the publication substantially expanded the reach of the allegations and allegedly caused serious damage to the reputation, public standing, credibility and longstanding relationships of Arabambi and Awofala.
The lawyers further argued that the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the allegations portrayed their clients as individuals who were dishonest, interfered improperly with judicial proceedings, intimidated or harassed persons, exerted improper pressure on litigants and engaged in conduct capable of undermining the administration of justice.
Arabambi and Awofala, however, have categorically denied all the allegations.
According to their solicitors, neither of the two men threatened, intimidated or harassed either of the party chairmen, applied undue pressure on them, procured or induced the discontinuance of any legal proceedings, connived with lawyers to misrepresent the position of any party or engaged in surveillance or any other improper conduct.
The legal team maintained that any disagreement concerning the authority or circumstances surrounding the discontinuance of a court case was fundamentally a matter capable of being resolved through established judicial processes.
It pointed to court records, proceedings, the authority of counsel, instructions given to legal representatives and the applicable law as the appropriate means of determining such disputes.
The solicitors argued that a disagreement over the discontinuance of proceedings, without supporting evidence, could not by itself establish that Arabambi and Awofala committed the acts allegedly attributed to them.
The lawyers also accused the defendants of acting maliciously by publicly associating their clients with the allegations despite what they described as the absence of any demonstrated factual basis.
They contended that the allegations were made against the backdrop of a politically charged dispute and were presented to the media as factual assertions rather than matters requiring proof.
Particular concern was raised over allegations involving threats, intimidation, surveillance and undue pressure, which the solicitors described as serious accusations capable of causing substantial reputational damage.
The legal team said no evidence substantiating those allegations was produced at the reported press conference.
Consequently, Lex Fortis LP demanded the immediate and complete retraction of all allegations against its clients.
The lawyers also demanded a full and unequivocal public apology, insisting that the apology should be published with substantially the same prominence and reach as the publication containing the allegedly defamatory statements.
The demands further include the removal of offending publications and social-media posts within the control of the defendants, an undertaking that the allegations would not be repeated and the preservation of all documentary and electronic evidence connected to the dispute.
The solicitors gave the defendants 48 hours from the receipt of the pre-action letter to provide the factual basis for each of the allegations if they intended to maintain their position.
Among other things, the lawyers requested details of the alleged incidents, including the identities of persons allegedly intimidated or harassed, dates and locations of the incidents, the precise words or conduct being relied upon, relevant documents, recordings, surveillance information and communications with alleged sources.
The law firm warned that failure to comply with the demands within the stipulated period would result in the commencement of legal proceedings against the defendants and any other persons subsequently found to be legally responsible for the publication or dissemination of the allegations.
According to the lawyers, any prospective court action could seek substantial, aggravated and, where legally sustainable, exemplary damages, as well as permanent injunctive relief, publication of a correction and apology, legal costs and any other appropriate orders that may be granted by a competent court.
The defendants were also placed on notice to preserve all potentially relevant evidence relating to the matter.
Such evidence, according to the letter, includes drafts of statements, audio and video recordings, WhatsApp messages, emails, correspondence, photographs, videos, social-media posts, metadata, website analytics and editorial communications.
The solicitors described the letter as a formal pre-action demand, stressing that the reputation of their clients was “not a political bargaining instrument.”
While indicating that their clients remained willing to consider an appropriate settlement without resorting to litigation, the lawyers maintained that any settlement would have to include a full retraction, unequivocal apology and satisfactory monetary compensation.
Global Mirror News gathered that the dispute stems from disagreements surrounding legal proceedings connected to the 2027 Ogun State governorship contest and the circumstances surrounding the reported discontinuance of the case.
The latest development means the parties now face the possibility of a defamation suit should the demands contained in the pre-action letter not be resolved within the stipulated period.
The ₦120 billion being demanded by Arabambi and Awofala represents their stated claim for damages at the pre-litigation stage. Any final determination of liability, damages or other remedies would ultimately depend on the response of the defendants and, if litigation is commenced, the decision of a competent court.
