By Moradeke Kolawole

When a person is consistent in one thing, it becomes their identity. In the case of former Ambassador Lilian Onoh, consistency lies in bitterness, vendetta and endless feuds. Her latest attempt to drag Mrs Abike Dabiri-Erewa into her cycle of accusations follows a well-worn pattern. Onoh is known more for her fights than for any enduring legacy of diplomacy.

The court records from the libel case filed by former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, expose the character behind the loud claims. Under cross-examination, Onyeama’s lawyer described her actions as nothing more than vendetta. Onoh herself admitted in open court that her hostility towards Onyeama was personal. She claimed he had pursued her career because her sister divorced him and went as far as describing the former minister’s supposed “hereditary insanity” and “unhinged psychiatric problem.” These are not the words of a seasoned diplomat. They are the words of someone consumed by malice and family feuds, now weaponised in professional spaces.

This is the same pattern she repeats with Abike Dabiri-Erewa. From a definitely fictional alleged encounter at Aso Villa in 2018, she has manufactured an entire story of Igbo hatred and ethnic vendetta, complete with insults, name-calling and cheap shots about appearance and education. Just like her fight with Onyeama, it is full of venom but empty of evidence. Abike Dabiri Erewa never met Onoh nor had any encounter with her anywhere at all. She is following her pattern of outright lies and venom.

It is ironic that someone accused of financial impropriety and known for dragging colleagues to court is now trying to lecture Nigerians on who is fit for public office. The truth is that Onoh’s record is one of bitterness and litigation, not of service and legacy.

By contrast, Abike Dabiri-Erewa’s record is open and verifiable. She gave voice to the voiceless as a journalist, served three terms in the House of Representatives with bills that cut across ethnic and religious lines, and as Chairman of NiDCOM has championed the cause of Nigerians stranded in Sudan, Ukraine, Libya, China and other troubled spots. She never asked whether they were Igbo, Yoruba or Hausa before intervening. That is the mark of service, not vendetta.

So when Lilian Onoh hurls unprintable words and tries to dress personal bitterness as national interest, Nigerians can see through it. Her own courtroom testimonies have already shown how far she is willing to go in twisting personal grievances into public battles.

Abike Dabiri-Erewa does not need to pay much attention to such manufactured stories because her work speaks for itself. Nigerians know her record and they know Onoh’s record too. One is a record of service, the other a record of quarrels.
So who is beyond redemption? Definitely Lilian Onoh.

By Hon. Gloria Okolugbo

The Office of the Distinguished Senator Prince Ned Munir Nwoko has observed with deep concern the rising trend of reckless defamation, baseless accusations, and outright blackmail targeted at political officeholders under the guise of opposition politics. While democracy thrives on diverse opinions and constructive criticism, it must be emphasized that the fundamental principles of fairness, truth, and accountability cannot be sacrificed in the name of political engagement.

It has come to our attention that despite prior warnings, certain individuals continue to propagate falsehoods and defamatory claims against the Distinguished Senator.

The recent case involving one Mr. Chimezie, who falsely accused Senator Nwoko of certificate forgery, embezzlement of public funds, and other malicious fabrications, is a glaring example of this disturbing trend. These are not mere political criticisms; they are grievous allegations with serious legal consequences.

Senator Nwoko, a renowned international legal practitioner and respected global figure, has built his reputation through decades of hard work, integrity, and service. It is therefore unacceptable that anyone, under the cover of social media, would make unsubstantiated claims aimed at tarnishing his hard-earned name. In Nigerian society, reputation is highly valued, and while some may trivialize theirs, the Distinguished Senator will not stand by and allow his integrity to be recklessly attacked.

Legal implication of defamation and cyberstalking

The laws of Nigeria and other civilized societies are clear on defamation, cyberstalking, and false accusations. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, particularly Section 24, criminalizes the use of electronic communication to send messages that are false, grossly offensive, or of a menacing character. Additionally, under the Criminal and Penal Codes of Nigeria, defamatory statements—whether in writing (libel) or spoken (slander)—are serious offenses punishable by law.

Forgery, an allegation carelessly thrown at the Distinguished Senator, is a grave criminal offense under Section 363 of the Criminal Code, attracting severe legal consequences. An accusation of forgery is not a matter to be taken lightly; it is an assertion that a crime has been committed, and the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

It is imperative to remind all that freedom of expression does not include the right to malign, defame, or falsely accuse others. Criticism of public officials should be based on facts and responsible discourse, not deliberate falsehoods designed to mislead the public and incite disaffection.

Political opposition must not be grounded in falsehoods

Distinguished Senator Ned Nwoko holds no grudge against anyone for opposing his policies or questioning his performance in office. He firmly believes that opposition is essential for democracy, as it fosters accountability and effectiveness in governance. However, opposition must be guided by reason, decency, and truth.

Emotion should never override common sense. Making reckless statements without evidence does not amount to opposition politics—it is blackmail and character assassination. The issue at hand is not about silencing critics but about ensuring that grave allegations are backed by facts and not mere political gimmicks.

The need for accountability in public discourse

Mr. Chimezie’s defamatory post was not made in secret; it was widely circulated across social media platforms, reaching audiences beyond Nigeria’s borders. He had nearly a month to retract or provide proof but chose neither. Instead, those supporting him now seek to shift the narrative by playing the victim card.

Let it be clear: Senator Ned Nwoko is the victim here. Defamation is not a tool for political engagement, and no individual—regardless of their background—has the right to make false accusations without being held accountable. Arrest is not persecution; rather, it is the lawful means of ensuring justice. If Mr. Chimezie has evidence to support his claims, now is the time to present it. Otherwise, he must face the consequences of his reckless actions.

Justice is for all – not just for the poor

Justice is not selective. While the public is quick to rally behind perceived underdogs, it is essential to recognize that the rich and powerful also deserve justice. Political officeholders, like every other citizen, have the right to protect their reputation and dignity. The attempt to paint this case as oppression is a deliberate distraction from the real issue: falsehood and its consequences.

The Legal Department and Communication Directorate of Senator Prince Ned Munir Nwoko’s office will not stand idly by while defamatory attacks continue unchecked. Going forward, any attempt to spread falsehoods or malicious allegations against the Distinguished Senator will be met with the full weight of the law.

We encourage constructive engagement and responsible discourse but will not tolerate slander, cyberstalking, or blackmail. Those who wish to oppose Senator Ned Nwoko are free to do so within the bounds of truth and decency. However, let it be known that defamation will not be ignored nor excused.

Signed,

Hon. Gloria Okolugbo Director Communications

Office of the Distinguished Senator Prince Ned Munir Nwoko.

Hon. Gloria Okolugbo

The recent critique by Charles Chukwuedo Snr, Esq., on the advocacy for Anioma State, while expressed with conviction, reflects a limited perspective that fails to engage with the broader strategic, economic, and historical imperatives behind this proposal. It is worrisome that, despite the extensive consultations, discussions, and dissemination of information by the office of distinguished Senator Ned Nwoko, who is championing this initiative, and has set up a Directorate of Communication to this effect, some still seek to undermine the advantages of state creation by reducing it to a debate about geopolitical zoning.

State Creation: More Than a Political Exercise

First, the notion that the creation of Anioma State is a political gimmick meant to alter geopolitical boundaries is a misrepresentation of facts. The advocacy for Anioma State is primarily driven by the need for equity, economic growth, and political relevance, not a mere reconfiguration of Nigeria’s geopolitical zones. It is important to recognize that the discussions on state creation are taking place within a broader context—one that includes revisiting Nigeria’s geopolitical structure in favour of economic zones. If Nigeria is to develop in a sustainable and inclusive manner, the conversation must transcend the rigidity of the current political arrangement and focus on fostering regions based on economic viability and shared development goals.

Development and Governance: A Question of Resources and Control

Chukwuedo argues that Delta State has received substantial allocations over the years and that the creation of another state is not a guaranteed solution to development. While it is true that resources have flowed into Delta State, it is equally true that Anioma, despite its contributions, has often been sidelined in the distribution of these resources. This is a recurring issue in many states with diverse ethnic groups, where certain regions bear the economic burden but do not enjoy commensurate development. The creation of Anioma State is, therefore, an opportunity to bring governance closer to the people and ensure that developmental priorities are aligned with the needs of Anioma communities.

Furthermore, the argument that the mere creation of a new state will not automatically resolve governance inefficiencies misses the point entirely. The demand for Anioma State is not premised on the illusion that it will be a magic wand for development. Rather, it is about correcting historical imbalances, ensuring fair representation, and giving Anioma people control over their economic and political future.

Security Concerns: A Convenient Misinterpretation

The writer attempts to invoke fear by pointing to security challenges in the southeast, suggesting that aligning Anioma State with the region would be a dangerous move. This argument is both misleading and alarmist. Security challenges in the South East, like in many parts of Nigeria, are not permanent conditions but problems that require strategic solutions. Moreover, Anioma communities already share cultural, historical, and economic ties with the South East. The real question is not about insecurity in the southeast but whether Anioma will be better positioned to chart its own developmental course as a state rather than remaining a marginalized part of Delta State.

It is also important to stress that the advocacy for Anioma State has taken all concerns, including security, into careful consideration. The discussions leading up to the public hearing have been thorough, involving various stakeholders who understand the complexities of the situation. The recent sacking of farmers and killing of vigilante in Obiaruku community; the bravado by fulani heardsmen in ika land and all over Oshimili and Aniocha has not been a priority concern to warrant attention from our Urhobo rulling class afterall it was left to fester during Anioma Governorship tenure. How has being in South South zone helped us tacle these challenges? Is it Anioma State creation quest that invited heardsmen? Raising security concerns as a reason to resist the state’s creation is disingenuous.

Anioma’s Historical and Political Identity

Chukwuedo argues that Anioma should remain within Delta State due to historical ties with the Urhobo, Itsekiri, Ijaw, and Isoko people. While historical relationships are important, they should not serve as a barrier to self-determination. The Anioma people have long sought a separate state, not because they wish to sever ties with their Delta neighbors, but because they recognize the need for a governance structure that prioritizes their interests.

More importantly, Anioma’s connection to the South East is not just about ethnicity but about shared economic and cultural aspirations. If geopolitical zones are being reconsidered in favour of economic zones, then Anioma’s alignment should be based on what best serves its long-term development rather than arbitrary political divisions imposed in the past.

Moving Forward: Seizing the Opportunity

Every concern raised against Anioma State has been carefully deliberated, discussed, and addressed in the buildup to the public hearing. The consultations have been inclusive, engaging political leaders, traditional rulers, and stakeholders across all sectors. If we are truly apolitical and committed to the progress of Anioma, now is the time to embrace the opportunity to actualize the dream of our fathers.

State creation is not merely about political reclassification; it is about empowerment, development, and self-determination. Anioma people must unite behind this cause, not be swayed by arguments that seek to diminish the significance of this long-overdue step. The opportunity is here, and history will judge us based on how we choose to act.

…Director Communications
Office of Senator Representing Delta North Senatorial Zone Distinguished Senator Prince Ned Munir Nwoko.