Abayomi Arabambi, the Labour Party’s National Vice Chairman for the South West, has demanded ₦50 billion in damages from Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate Peter Obi over an alleged defamatory remark made during a recent podcast interview.
Arabambi, through his lawyers, accused Obi of making a statement suggesting that he “does not have an address,” a comment he said was false, damaging and capable of exposing him to public ridicule. He is now asking for a public retraction, an apology and financial compensation over what he described as a serious attack on his reputation and public standing.
In a pre action demand letter dated July 3, 2026, and issued by Neplus Ultra Attorneys, Arabambi’s legal team argued that the statement portrayed him as a faceless individual without legitimacy, credibility or standing in public life. The letter was signed by Anderson U. Asemota, Peter O. Asimegbe and Stanley C. Eziefulle.
According to the lawyers, the interview was widely circulated on television and across several digital platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp, thereby exposing their client to widespread ridicule and public embarrassment.
They maintained that Arabambi has a known residential and business address, as well as established professional and political ties within Nigeria, and has never been someone whose identity or whereabouts were unknown.
The legal team argued that the natural meaning many viewers would draw from Obi’s alleged statement was that Arabambi is an unidentifiable person with no known residence, no legitimate public standing and no reason to command public trust.
They further stated that the publication had harmed their client’s reputation, diminished his standing in political and social circles and subjected him to attacks on his integrity and personality.
Arabambi’s lawyers also pointed to reactions on social media following the interview, saying they reflected a public understanding of the alleged remark as an attack on his identity and credibility.
They contended that Obi, as a prominent political figure and presidential candidate, ought to have exercised greater caution before making comments capable of damaging another person’s reputation. According to them, the circumstances surrounding the publication suggested both express and implied malice, especially given the audience the interview was likely to reach.
The letter said Arabambi had suffered humiliation, embarrassment and injury to his public image as a result of the publication, insisting that the alleged statement had done significant harm to his dignity and reputation.
As part of the demands, Obi was asked to issue within seven days a clear, unconditional and unambiguous retraction of the alleged statement on the same podcast or on another platform with similar reach.
Additionally, the lawyers demanded a full, public apology from Obi. This retraction must be broadcast on national TV, posted on his verified social media platforms, and featured as full-page advertisements in five major national newspapers: Vanguard, The Punch, The Guardian, THISDAY, and The Nation.
Beyond the apology and retraction, Arabambi is seeking ₦50 billion as compensation for the alleged injury done to his reputation, dignity, political standing and public image.
His legal team also asked Obi to provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making any further defamatory remarks against Arabambi. They further directed him to preserve every material connected to the podcast interview, including video recordings, transcripts, correspondence, electronic communications and digital metadata, warning that any destruction or alteration of evidence could become relevant in future court proceedings.
The solicitors warned that if Obi fails to meet the demands within seven days, their client would proceed with legal action. According to them, the case would seek declarations that the publication was defamatory, along with general, aggravated and exemplary damages, a perpetual injunction against further publication of similar statements, an order for public retraction and apology, interest on any monetary award and the cost of the suit.
The lawyers said their client would have preferred a resolution outside the courtroom, but insisted that the law protects a person’s reputation and that such a right cannot be abandoned in the face of what they described as a false and damaging publication.
