Counsel to Jordan Nyesom Wike, Dr James Ogwu Onoja, SAN, has accused the opposing side in a $2.1 million Abuja land dispute of taking the case to the court of public opinion, warning VeryDarkMan (VDM), bloggers and media organisations against publishing claims he described as false.
Onoja said the circulation of reports suggesting that his client admitted receiving $2.1 million from Safwan Garba over an Abuja property transaction was a deliberate misrepresentation of proceedings in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The dispute is before the court in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/008/2026.
The senior lawyer’s reaction followed an interview granted by I.G. Wuru, counsel to Garba, which Onoja alleged had created the impression that Jordan Wike acknowledged receiving the disputed sum.
He said VDM, Sahara Reporters and several other online platforms subsequently amplified the claim, describing the publications as damaging to his client’s reputation and capable of prejudicing the ongoing proceedings.
Onoja insisted that Jordan Wike had never admitted receiving money from Garba, maintaining that his client’s position in court was that he had never met Garba or any of his agents.
“Jordan Wike in his defence before the court stated in unequivocal terms that he has never met Safwan Garba G.Y. or any of his agents at any time,” he said.
According to Onoja, his client maintained that position while giving evidence on September 28 and 30, 2026.
The lawyer alleged that the media campaign was designed to whip up public sentiments and intimidate the judge handling the case.
He said his team had avoided commenting publicly on the dispute because it was before the court but decided to respond following what he described as persistent misrepresentation and attacks against his client.
Onoja also challenged the handling of an EFCC petition linked to the dispute, claiming that his team tendered the document in court to expose inconsistencies in Garba’s claims. These assertions have not been independently verified.
The SAN warned that continued publication of the disputed allegation could attract civil and criminal proceedings for alleged libel, slander, malicious falsehood and cyberbullying.
He demanded the removal of publications suggesting that Jordan Wike admitted receiving the $2.1 million, insisting that the court, rather than social media commentary, should determine the merits of the dispute.
The allegations and counterclaims remain subject to judicial determination. The position presented here is that of Jordan Wike’s counsel; an independent account from the opposing side was not included in the material provided.