Defamation: Court Bars Activist, Orders Facebook to Pull Posts on Senator Natasha

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has restrained a UK-based activist, Dr Sandra Duru, also known as Prof Mgbeke, and Meta Platforms Inc., operator of Facebook, from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory content about Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

The court granted an interim injunction pending the determination of the substantive suit, holding that the case raised “a serious question to be tried” and that there was a risk of “irreparable damage” to the senator’s reputation if urgent action was not taken.

The ruling, delivered by Justice I. Mohammed in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, followed a motion on notice filed by the claimant, who sought judicial protection against what she described as sustained online attacks on her character.

In a Certified True Copy of the ruling sighted in Abuja, the court held that the application disclosed “a serious question to be tried” and that immediate intervention was necessary to prevent irreparable reputational harm pending the outcome of the main suit.

Justice Mohammed ordered that the first defendant, Sandra Duru, “either by herself, her agents, privies, or howsoever called, is restrained from further publishing, posting, sharing, disseminating or promoting on Facebook or any other social media platform any material containing defamatory, scandalous, inciteful or injurious content against the Applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

In a related order, the court directed Meta Platforms Inc. to “immediately take down and/or disable access to all offending publications, posts or broadcasts made by the 1st Defendant against the Claimant, whether in her personal name or under the pseudonym ‘Prof Mgbeke,’ pending the determination of the suit.”

The judge also instructed the social media company to preserve all electronic evidence connected to the matter, ordering Meta to “preserve, secure, and archive all content, metadata and digital footprints associated with the offending posts and user accounts operated by the 1st Defendant, for the purpose of aiding this Honourable Court in the fair determination of the substantive suit.”

Justice Mohammed underscored the preservatory nature of injunctions, explaining that such orders are meant “to prevent irreparable harm, maintain the status quo ante bellum, and ensure that the subject matter of the dispute is not altered before final judgment.”

He stressed that the reliefs granted were protective, not punitive.

“Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan established a clear prima facie case of ongoing defamation, with irreparable harm to reputation that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages alone,” the judge said.

He further held that “the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the Applicant,” especially given the alleged repeated publications and the risk of continued reputational injury.

The court also took note of the claimant’s allegation that the first defendant engaged in “a sustained and malicious campaign of cyberbullying, harassment and defamation,” allegedly publishing no fewer than 30 posts between May and October 2025.

According to the ruling, the publications were said to have gone viral, exposing the claimant to hostility, security threats and emotional trauma.

On Meta’s involvement, Justice Mohammed observed that the claimant had formally notified the platform by submitting complaints identifying specific links and content. He noted the allegation that Meta’s failure to act “enabled the continued accessibility of the defamatory materials and facilitated further attacks,” an issue the court said raised serious questions for trial.

The ruling comes about eight months after Duru released what she described as evidence from exclusive phone conversations, which she claimed showed that the then-suspended lawmaker lied against the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, over a controversial sexual harassment allegation.

During a Facebook Live session monitored by a correspondent, the activist also alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to induce her with N200 million to falsely accuse the former Akwa Ibom State governor of organ harvesting.

Opinion Nigeria News