Obi Cubana sues PM Express for N1bn over ‘Drug Baron’ article

The huge sum of N1 billion lawsuit has been slammed on publishers of Lagos based newspapers “PM Express” by Obinna “Obi” Iyiegbu, commonly known as Obi Cubana.

The Nigerian entrepreneur and businessman who chairs the Cubana Group, dragged the publishers to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) for using their news platform to report a slanderous information against him.

In the suit dated and filed on April 27, 2022  and marked: CV/1367/2022, by his lawyer, Mr. Afam Osigwe (SAN), Chief Iyiegbu  claimed the publication has incurred serious losses, after they ‘’maliciously’’ used his photography in reporting a story in which the whole story is not associated with him.

Cubana who stressed that the publication was malicious, aimed at tarnishing his hard-earned reputation, said the respondent had on April 26, 2022 published on their website: www.pmexpressng.com a story with headline ‘’Court Orders Banks to Freeze Suspected Drug Barons’ Accounts’’ with his picture used as that of one of the two suspected drug barons, Basil Okafor Onochie and Okwuchukwu Edwin Izuxhukwu, whose accounts were reportedly ordered frozen by Justice Tijjani Ringim in the suit filed by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

Chief Iyiebu said, “Defendants’ publication made using claimant’s picture was calculated to injure claimant’s reputation, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, ridicule.’’

He added that the defendants’ action was , built over the years so as to drive internet traffic to their website and social media platforms, gain public relevance and do maximum incalculable damage to claimant’s reputation, businesses, vocation and standing in the society.

While stating that the defendants by their weighty publications cast grave aspersion on his honour, reputation and integrity, Chief Iyiebu submitted that following the publication many persons, businesses, friends, associates, acquaintances as well as community members have shunned him and his company.

The publication, he added, exposed him to hatred, contempt, ridicule and injury in his position, profession, endeavours and businesses.

The defendants, he further stated, ‘’have by their publications shown they are engaged in an intentional smear campaign through defamatory publications.”

He argued that in an increasingly networked world online publication that invariably pass through the hands of countless intermediaries who distribute, host and index the billions of web-pages, e-mails and social media posts that make up the internet, “the defendants will not desist from the continuing hosting and publication of the complained words unless they are restrained by the court.’’

He also prayed the court to make an order that interest in the above sum be calculated at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of judgment until the final liquidation of the judgment sum.

While he also prayed for an order directing the defendants to carry out a global take-down or removal of the alleged defamatory content against the claimant on the internet, social media, Facebook etc, he urged that defendants tender a public apology in three different national newspapers.