Court Dismisses Gani Adams’ ₦5 Billion Defamation Suit Against Sunday Igboho

An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has dismissed a ₦5 billion defamation suit filed by the Aareonakakanfo of Yorubaland, Gani Adams, against Yoruba nation activist Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho.

Delivering judgment on Thursday, July 3, 2025, Justice O.T. Ademola-Salami ruled that the suit lacked merit and awarded ₦500,000 in costs against Adams in favour of Igboho.

The lawsuit, filed under suit number M/1006/2004, accused Igboho of recording and publishing a private phone conversation involving Adams without his consent an act Adams claimed violated his fundamental rights and injured his reputation in his traditional role.

Adams had sought several reliefs, including a declaration that recording private conversations without consent is unconstitutional, and demanded ₦5 billion in damages for defamation and breach of privacy.

However, Igboho’s legal counsel, Junaid Sanusi, filed a counter-affidavit challenging the admissibility of the claims. He pointed out that the affidavit submitted by Adams was not personally sworn by the applicant, nor was any explanation given for why Adams did not depose to it himself.

Justice Ademola-Salami upheld Sanusi’s argument, declaring that the affidavit was defective and inadmissible. He further noted that Adams failed to prove that his phone was tapped or that the conversation was unlawfully recorded by the defendant.

The legal dispute stemmed from allegations that Sunday Igboho secretly recorded a phone conversation involving Gani Adams and another person, and then released it publicly, allegedly to tarnish Adams’ image. The conversation reportedly contained comments that the claimant said were manipulated to damage his reputation.

The matter came up for judgment after a hearing in April 2025, during which both sides presented arguments. Adams was absent from Thursday’s court proceedings and was not represented by his legal counsel.

“The affidavit in support of the claims of the applicant was defective, having not been deposed to by the applicant or a person informed by him,” Justice Ademola-Salami ruled.

He concluded, “The applicant also failed to establish any evidence that the defendant intercepted or recorded his telephone conversation.”