Court Restrains FG From Publishing Secondus’ Name In Looters List

A High Court sitting in Port Harcourt on Monday ordered the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed; and the Federal Government to stop further mention of the name of Prince Uche Secondus, National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, as one of the looters in the country pending the determination of a matter brought before it bordering on defamation of character.

Secondus had approached the State High Court presided over by the State Chief Judge, Justice I.A. Iyayi-Lamikanra, in Suit Number PHC/1013/2018, seeking the sum of N1.5bn as damages over the publishing of his name in the media as one of those allegedly involved in the looting of the nation’s treasury.

Secondus was reported to have received the sum of N200m from the office of the then National Security Adviser on February 19, 2015.

Apparently not satisfied with the claim by Lai Mohammed, Secondus sued the minister alongside the Federal Government and Vintage Press, seeking among other prayers a declaration that the defendants should retract the said publication and apologise in writing to him (claimant) for the defamatory publication.

However, Justice Iyayi-Laminkanra granted one of the prayers sought by the claimant when she restrained the defendants from further mentioning the name of Secondus in the looters’ list.

But the defendants and their counsels were absent in court when the matter was mentioned for hearing.

The trial judge, nevertheless, adjourned the matter till May 28, 2018.

Speaking with newsmen shortly after court session, lead counsel for Secondus, Mr. Emeka Etiaba, SAN, insisted that there was no truth in the claim against his client.

Etiaba said, “The prayers are that they retract the libellous material in as many media as they published it, payment of N1.5bn to Prince Secondus as damages. The judge has granted the restraining order.

“We moved our motion seeking interlocutory injunction in restraining the defendants from further publishing the libellous content. Prayer one was granted. Prayer two was not granted because the honourable court said it was at large.

 

“But we are very satisfied with (the granting of) prayer one, which effectively halts further libel.”