On December 18, 2025, courts in both Nigeria and Kenya handed down significant rulings aimed at curbing the spread of alleged defamatory statements on social media and other digital platforms, highlighting the growing tension between freedom of expression and the protection of individual reputations in the digital age.
In Nigeria, the Federal Capital Territory High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Barrister Eze Chikamnayo, a former Abia State Commissioner of Information, from publishing or disseminating any further content deemed defamatory against Governor Alex Chioma Otti. The ruling, delivered by Justice J.E. Obanor, came in response to a motion filed by Governor Otti’s legal team as part of a high-stakes N100 billion defamation lawsuit.
According to court documents reviewed by THE WHISTLER, Chikamnayo had allegedly continued to publish a series of inflammatory posts on his Facebook wall, ‘Iyierioba Chikamnayo,’ and other digital media platforms between October 17 and October 31, 2025, even after being served with court papers. The posts included statements such as “Alex Otthief Will Lose by 2027 and Abia State will remain peaceful,” “Alex Otthief is a confirmed bully. He is obviously jittery!!!!,” and “Otthief is a thief.” These were cited by the governor’s legal team as examples of sustained harassment and reputational assault.
In an affidavit supporting the motion, Ifeanyi Michael Agbo, practice manager at Deeplaw Associates, stated: “The Defendant/Respondent who is a legal practitioner and very knowledgeable of the duty imposed by law when a lawsuit is pending has remained defiant in sustaining annoying and offensive materials and calling the Claimant/Applicant thief in offensive materials published on the Defendant/Respondent’s Facebook Wall.” The affidavit further argued that Chikamnayo’s actions were “with the objective to cause the Claimant/Applicant maximum reputational damage and instigate mob uprising against Claimant/Applicant by the people of Abia State.”
Governor Otti’s counsel, Dr. Sonny Ajala, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, asserted in a written address that the continued publications violated the doctrine of sub judice, which prohibits any act or statement that could prejudice ongoing court proceedings. The address specifically cited posts made on October 29, 2025, in which Chikamnayo wrote: “You cannot use frivolous litigation as a means of evading the truth and accountability” and “Suing or intimidating opposition will not stop the takeover.” Dr. Ajala maintained, “The affront and effrontery of the Defendant/Respondent who is a legal practitioner is unparalleled, unacceptable and deserving of the remonstration by this Temple of Justice.”
The court’s decision was unambiguous. Justice Obanor ordered Chikamnayo to cease “writing, authoring, sharing, circulating, broadcasting, voicing, forwarding and/or syndicating the writing and publication of contents defamatory of the Claimant on the Defendant’s Facebook wall ‘Iyierioba Chikamnayo’ and/or any other social/digital media platform such as X, Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, Tiktok, including the traditional media to wit: the newspaper houses, the radio and television pending the determination of the substantive suit that gave rise to this application.” The case was adjourned to January 19, 2026, for further hearing.
The underlying defamation suit, filed on October 8, 2025, followed a demand letter dated October 2, 2025, which Chikamnayo failed to comply with. The lawsuit references multiple posts made between July and September 2025, including accusations such as “Alex Otthief is a confirmed criminal and disaster” and “Alex Otthief is A confirmed criminal and congenital Liar=Looting Governor.” Governor Otti is seeking a declaration that his “reputation, respect, goodwill and standing as a person, husband, father and a political leader has been grossly injured,” along with N100 billion in damages, an unreserved apology to be published across several media outlets, a perpetual injunction against further defamatory content, and N250 million in legal costs.
Chikamnayo, described in court documents as “an internet citizen (netcitizen) who applies his trade including the offensive publications that gave rise to this suit online/digitally with global audience,” was ordered to enter an appearance within thirty days of being served the writ or risk judgment in his absence. Governor Otti’s lawyers contended that the posts resulted in “unquantifiable mental torture, depression, denigration, brutal destruction of his (Otti’s) reputation built over the decades” and “utterly disfigured and diminished our client’s standing in the eyes and estimation of right-thinking persons.”
Meanwhile, in Kenya, a similar drama unfolded as a court issued an order restraining Kung’u Muigai from publishing bribery allegations against Justice Isaac Lenaola. The order stemmed from an application dated September 30, 2025, in which Justice Lenaola sued Muigai for defamation over claims made on various social media and digital platforms.
Justice Lenaola alleged that Muigai had falsely accused him of accepting Ksh.1 million to deliver an adverse judgment in a case involving Muigai and a company associated with him. The judge stated that the allegations, made during interviews and in online postings, were widely shared across YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter). To support his application, Justice Lenaola submitted an affidavit with videos, photographs, screenshots, and print media extracts, all certified under Section 106B of the Evidence Act.
According to the affidavit, the statements were “defamatory, malicious, and calculated to portray him as a corrupt judicial officer who accepts bribes, thereby lowering his standing in society and undermining public confidence in the judiciary.” Justice Lenaola further clarified that the allegations related to a case he presided over many years ago as a High Court judge, a case in which Muigai and his company lost. He argued that the claims had caused serious harm to his professional reputation and judicial career.
For his part, Muigai admitted to making the statements but insisted in his defense that they were true, repeating the allegations in his court pleadings. The defamation suit remains pending, with the court’s order serving as a temporary measure to halt further publication of the bribery claims until the matter is resolved.
Both cases underscore a growing judicial willingness to intervene and restrict digital speech where it is alleged to cross the line into defamation. The courts in Nigeria and Kenya have each emphasized the potential for online statements to inflict lasting reputational harm, especially when disseminated to large audiences via social media. Yet, these injunctions also raise important questions about the boundaries of free expression, particularly in political and public-interest contexts where robust debate is essential.
As the hearings in both the Otti-Chikamnayo and Lenaola-Muigai cases continue, observers across Africa and beyond will be watching closely. The outcomes could set important precedents for how courts balance reputation and free speech in an era where a single post can reach millions in seconds.
The next chapter in these legal battles will unfold in the new year, with the Nigerian court scheduled to reconvene on January 19, 2026. Until then, the individuals at the heart of each case—and the broader public—are left to ponder the power and perils of digital discourse in a rapidly changing world.
