“I Might Not Be a Party to This Case, But It’s My Case” — Keren’s Mother Confronts Premiere Academy in Court

In an emotionally charged moment outside the Abuja High Court, sitting in Kwali, Mrs. Vivien Akpagher, the mother of Keren-Happuch Aondoodo Akpagher, lampooned Premiere Academy, the school where her 14-year-old daughter was allegedly raped—an ordeal that led to complications and her tragic death.

Though not formally listed as a party in the legal battle, Mrs. Akpagher described Premiere Academy as insensitive, bereft of empathy and brazen following its N500 Million alleged defamation suit brought against journalist and gender rights activist, Dr. Lemmy Ughegbe, leading the quest for the rapist-killer of her daughter to be fished out and brought to book.

Responding to newsmen who sought to know why she was in court, an emotional Mrs Akpagher said Premiere Academy’s suit against Dr. Lemmy was indirectly aimed at her, wondering how audaciously an institution would want to use legal machination to silence they cry for justice for her daughter.

“Premier Academy had the temerity to bring Lemmy Ughegbe to court—someone who is fighting for my daughter to make sure she gets the justice she deserves. I truly wanted to come and look them in the face—the people that I filed a formal complaint at the police as those who raped and killed my girl—just to see how they live, how they function daily.”

She quizzed: “Is it not ridiculous and laughable that the sole reason for suing Dr. Ughegbe is because at the NBA Law Week he called Premiere Academy suspects in the rape of my daughter? I filed a criminal complaint at the police station against Premiere Academy, stating that my daughter was raped in their school, which compromised her health and led to death. So, are they not suspects by my complaint?”

Her words, raw with grief and fury, underscored the gravity of the case that has captivated national attention. Keren’s mother lamented the fact that, more than three years after her daughter’s death, there has been no concrete resolution.

“Each day I wake up, I think, what was it I did wrong? Was it wrong to have taken my daughter to Premier Academy in pursuit of a good education? Today, I think education is overrated, because it was in the pursuit of an education that led to her death.”

Meanwhile, Premiere Academy has admitted before an Abuja High Court that the relentless #Justice4Keren campaign, spearheaded by Dr. Lemmy Ughegbe, has significantly damaged its reputation and financial standing.

During the proceedings, the school, Mrs Chris Akinsonwon led in evidence by Barrister Olajide Kumuyi from the law firm of Chief Adegboyega Solomon Awomolo (SAN) tendered exhibits in court, including a flash drive containing footage of Ughegbe’s impassioned address at the 2021 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Law Week, where he spoke before 5,000 lawyers about Keren’s case, three years’ worth of admission registers, allegedly showing a sharp decline in student enrolment, with only 59 new applicants in 2022, among others.

While the school argues that Ughegbe’s advocacy has led to financial losses, many see this as an acknowledgment of the power of the #Justice4Keren movement—a campaign that has exposed uncomfortable truths and kept the case in public consciousness.

For many human rights advocates, this case is not just about defamation, but about accountability. Ughegbe, known for his unwavering stance against gender-based violence (GBV) and impunity, has remained steadfast in his call for justice.

His legal representative, Johnbull Adaghe, challenged the admissibility of some of the documents presented by Premiere Academy, arguing that they were not frontloaded in compliance with the rules of court. However, Justice Kayode Agunloye overruled the objections and admitted the documents as exhibits.

With the court set to play the video evidence of Ughegbe’s NBA Law Week speech on March 18, public interest in the case continues to rise, particularly as it touches on critical issues of justice, institutional accountability, and the silencing of human rights defenders.

As the legal battle is adjourned to 18th of March, 2025, Mrs. Akpagher’s words serve as a reminder that this is not just a courtroom drama—it is a fight for justice, dignity, and the right to speak truth to power and demand justice for a rape victim.

END

In a surprising turn of events, the legal team representing Rivers State Governor Sim Fubara withdrew an appeal before the Supreme Court on Monday, a move that has sparked widespread debate and misinterpretation.
Contrary to reports suggesting the Supreme Court dismissed the case on merit, activist lawyer Deji Adeyanju clarified that the withdrawal was a strategic legal decision, not a judicial dismissal.

The appeal revolved around the controversial re-presentation of the 2024 budget before the 27 pro-Wike lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly. These legislators are aligned with Nyesom Wike, the current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and Fubara’s political rival.

In a brief session, the apex court, led by Justice Musa Uwani-Aba-Aji, acknowledged the withdrawal after Fubara’s lead counsel, Yusuf Ali, SAN, informed the court that the matter had been overtaken by political developments. The court proceeded to dismiss the case based on the withdrawal, not on its legal merits, and awarded N4 million in costs against Governor Fubara, payable to the House of Assembly and its Speaker, Martin Amaewhule.

Legal experts suggest that the withdrawal may signal a behind-the-scenes political realignment or an attempt to de-escalate tensions between the governor and the pro-Wike faction.

Addressing the confusion, Adeyanju took to X (formerly Twitter) to set the record straight:

> “The Supreme Court did not dismiss Fubara’s Appeal. The appeal was withdrawn by lawyers representing the governor because the subject matter has been overtaken by events. This is the correct representation of what happened in court today.”

This development adds a new layer to the political crisis in Rivers State, where the battle for control between Fubara and his predecessor Wike has led to legislative standoffs and legal battles. Observers are now keenly watching how this legal maneuver will impact the ongoing power tussle within the state’s political landscape.

***Did Nigeria Unknowingly Admit Guilt at the ICC?

The long-standing legal battle over the $6 billion Mambilla Power Project has taken a dramatic turn as former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari gave conflicting testimonies before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in Paris.
Their contrasting accounts have raised serious questions about Nigeria’s defense strategy in the case, potentially jeopardizing the country’s chances of avoiding a hefty $2.3 billion compensation claim by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company.
Testifying on January 22, 2025, Obasanjo outrightly dismissed the legitimacy of the 2003 contract, arguing that it was illegally signed by the then Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, despite the Federal Executive Council (FEC) rejecting it.
“The agreement relied on by Sunrise Power was never valid. A minister cannot single-handedly approve a contract after the Federal Executive Council had rejected it,” Obasanjo declared.
He insisted that a minister has no executive power to award such a high-value contract without presidential or FEC approval, implying that Sunrise Power’s claim is baseless.

However, Buhari’s testimony on January 23, 2025, provided a starkly different narrative—one that many believe undermined Nigeria’s defense.
When questioned, Buhari admitted that his administration had recognized and engaged with Sunrise Power over the contract.
“I directed the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the Minister of Works and Power, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), to negotiate with Sunrise Power,” he stated.
His words contradict Obasanjo’s stance that the contract was invalid from the outset. By acknowledging negotiations, Buhari inadvertently strengthened Sunrise Power’s claim, suggesting that successive administrations recognized the contract, even if it was initially disputed.

Buhari also made a controversial statement, hinting that Nigeria—not Sunrise Power—was the extortionist in the dispute, a remark that further weakened the government’s position.
The contradictory testimonies have put Nigeria’s legal team in a difficult position. If Buhari’s admission is considered valid, it could be interpreted as an official acknowledgment of the contract’s legitimacy, making it harder for Nigeria to argue against paying the $2.3 billion compensation.
Meanwhile, Olu Agunloye, the minister accused of wrongfully awarding the contract, is currently facing trial in Nigeria for forgery, corruption, and abuse of office.
He has denied the allegations, arguing that he is being used as a scapegoat to discredit Sunrise Power’s claim.
With the case nearing its final stages at the ICC, legal experts believe Nigeria faces an uphill battle in proving its innocence. The conflicting testimonies from two former Presidents could be a major setback, as the arbitration panel may now question the credibility of Nigeria’s defense.

As the stakes remain high, observers are left wondering: Did Nigeria just lose its best chance to avoid a multi-billion-dollar payout?