Denge Josef Onoh, former South-East Spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly, has described Reno Omokri’s latest court-related statement as a classic case of “medicine after death”—a remorse that arrived only after irreparable damage had been done.
In a statement made available to journalists in Abuja, Onoh reacted to Omokri’s January 28, 2026 response following developments in the trial of activist Omoyele Sowore. At the Federal High Court in Abuja on January 27, 2026, Sowore’s defence team tendered and played a 2023 video in which Omokri labelled then-presidential candidate Bola Tinubu a “drug lord” and claimed to possess documentary proof. The court admitted the video as evidence, a development widely reported by Premium Times, Vanguard and Sahara Reporters.
Onoh noted that Omokri has since admitted making what he termed “uncomplimentary remarks” about Tinubu in 2023, attributing them to misinformation allegedly sourced from platforms including Sahara Reporters, owned by Sowore. However, Onoh argued that such after-the-fact admissions do little to heal the wounds inflicted by the original comments, which he said helped fuel polarising narratives and reputational harm during an intensely contested election period.
From a legal standpoint, Onoh stressed that delayed retractions do not automatically extinguish liability for defamation or related claims under Nigerian law. He cited Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order v. Awoniyi (1994), where courts held that harm caused by false statements persists unless promptly mitigated. He further argued that recasting past conduct as mere “mistaken belief,” without unequivocal responsibility, could amount to malicious publication under Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
Onoh affirmed that Sowore is entitled to tender the 2023 video as part of his defence against cyberstalking charges under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015—particularly Section 24, which criminalises grossly offensive or knowingly false messages intended to cause annoyance or harm.
He explained that introducing the video underscores claims of selective enforcement, noting that similar statements by prominent figures such as Omokri went unprosecuted at the time. According to Onoh, this supports the argument that such claims were part of the broader public discourse rather than knowingly false fabrications. He cited the Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 1–3 and 83), which allows parties to adduce prior inconsistent statements or comparative examples to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
Onoh also referenced Ojo v. FRN (2006), where evidence of widespread similar conduct was considered relevant in assessing intent to harm. He insisted that Sowore’s courtroom strategy is a legitimate defensive approach, protected by the constitutional right to a fair trial under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Dissecting Omokri’s Statement
Onoh dismissed Omokri’s statement as neither contrition nor accountability, but rather a calculated alignment with judicial outcomes—acceptance of reality masquerading as apology. He broke down his position point by point.
He argued that Omokri’s claim of having spoken “believing them to be true,” while shifting blame to media outlets like Sahara Reporters, amounted to deflection rather than remorse. Citing Airtel Networks Ltd v. Thisday Newspapers Ltd (2016), Onoh said a genuine apology in defamation matters must express unqualified regret, not excuses.
On Omokri’s May 29, 2023 statement affirming Tinubu as President and urging Nigerians to support him, Onoh said this was merely an acknowledgment of inauguration—not a retraction of earlier smears—especially as it came before the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Regarding Omokri’s acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment (SC/CV/953/2023), which dismissed election petitions and held that no disqualifying criminal convictions existed against Tinubu, Onoh said this reflected compliance with constitutional finality under Section 287, not remorse for spreading what Omokri later described as “fallacious” claims.
Onoh further scrutinised Omokri’s subsequent media appearances on October 28, 2023; March 27, 2025; and June 11, 2025, noting that while Omokri admitted he was “wrong,” he often blamed the media, including Sowore. Such delayed retractions, Onoh said, may have procedural value but lose moral force due to timing, citing Ojukwu v. Nwosu (2003), where courts held that late apologies do not fully mitigate damages.
On Omokri’s claim of a private apology to Tinubu on October 1, 2024—complete with prostration—Onoh described it as dramatic but unverifiable, selective in its privacy, and reactive to shifting power realities rather than evidence of sincere, principled regret.
In conclusion, Onoh maintained that Omokri’s so-called “withdrawals” were compelled by unavoidable realities, including the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Tinubu’s victory and rejection of disqualification claims. He described the move as pragmatic surrender to facts, not ethical accountability for circulating unverified allegations during a pivotal election. According to Onoh, Sowore’s courtroom strategy merely exposes this contradiction, reinforcing his view that accountability cannot be retrofitted as virtue after the damage is done.
