In a ruling that could redefine accountability in Nigeria’s fast-evolving digital space, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has moved decisively to stem what it described as a potentially destructive pattern of online defamation against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Sitting in Gwagwalada, Abuja, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining social media personality Sandra C. Duru—popularly known as “Prof. Mgbeke”—alongside Meta Platforms Inc., owners of Facebook and affiliated platforms, from further publishing or disseminating content alleged to be defamatory against the senator.
Delivering the ruling in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, Justice I. Mohammed held that the matter raised “serious questions to be tried,” stressing that the court could not afford to look away while alleged defamatory publications continued to circulate unchecked in the digital space. According to the judge, reputational damage in the age of social media is often swift, far-reaching, and difficult—if not impossible—to reverse.
The court specifically restrained Sandra Duru, whether acting personally or through agents, associates, or proxies, from posting, sharing, promoting, or otherwise disseminating any content deemed defamatory, scandalous, inciteful, or injurious against Akpoti-Uduaghan on Facebook or any other social media platform, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
In what many observers regard as the most consequential aspect of the ruling, Justice Mohammed turned the spotlight on Meta Platforms Inc., ordering the technology giant to immediately take down or disable access to all offending posts attributed to the first defendant, whether published under her real name or the pseudonym “Prof. Mgbeke.” The court further directed Meta to preserve and secure all electronic evidence related to the disputed publications, including metadata and digital footprints, to assist in the fair determination of the case.
Emphasising the nature of interlocutory injunctions, the judge noted that such orders are preservatory rather than punitive. Their purpose, he explained, is to maintain the status quo ante bellum and prevent further harm while the court interrogates the substantive issues in dispute.
Justice Mohammed found that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had successfully established a prima facie case of ongoing defamation, observing that damage to reputation—particularly when amplified online—cannot always be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone. He added that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the claimant, especially in light of allegations of sustained and repeated online attacks.
According to the claimant, no fewer than 30 allegedly defamatory posts were published between May and October 2025, many of which reportedly went viral. The senator contended that these publications exposed her to public hostility, emotional distress, and potential security threats.
On Meta’s role, the court took note of allegations that the platform had been formally notified of the offending content but failed to act promptly. Such inaction, the judge observed, raises serious questions about the responsibility of social media companies in preventing abuse and curbing the amplification of harmful narratives.
Legal analysts say the ruling represents a significant moment in Nigeria’s digital jurisprudence, signalling a growing judicial willingness to confront online defamation directly. It underscores an emerging balance: while freedom of expression remains protected, it is not a licence for sustained harassment or reputational harm in an era where misinformation can travel faster than the truth.
FCT Court Issues Injunction, Orders Meta to Takedown Alleged Defamatory Posts
