Denge Josef Onoh, former South-East Spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly, has characterized Reno Omokri’s recent court-related statement as a classic instance of “medicine after death”—a form of remorse that arrives only after irreparable damage has occurred.
In a statement provided to journalists in Abuja, Onoh responded to Omokri’s January 28, 2026, remarks following developments in the trial of activist Omoyele Sowore. At the Federal High Court in Abuja on January 27, 2026, Sowore’s defence team presented and played a 2023 video in which Omokri referred to then-presidential candidate Bola Tinubu as a “drug lord” and claimed to possess documentary evidence. The court accepted the video as evidence, a fact that was widely reported.
Onoh pointed out that Omokri has since acknowledged making what he called “uncomplimentary remarks” about Tinubu in 2023, attributing those remarks to misinformation allegedly gathered from sources like Sahara Reporters, which is owned by Sowore. However, Onoh contended that such late admissions do little to heal the wounds inflicted by the initial statements, which he argued contributed to polarizing narratives and reputational damage during a heated election period.
From a legal perspective, Onoh emphasized that delayed retractions do not automatically absolve liability for defamation or related claims under Nigerian law. He referenced Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order v. Awoniyi (1994), where courts determined that harm caused by false statements endures unless swiftly mitigated. He further argued that portraying past conduct as mere “mistaken belief”—without accepting unequivocal responsibility—could be deemed a malicious publication under Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
Onoh asserted that Sowore is entitled to present the 2023 video as part of his defence against cyberstalking charges under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015—particularly Section 24, which prohibits grossly offensive or knowingly false messages intended to cause annoyance or harm.
He elaborated that the introduction of the video highlights claims of selective enforcement, noting that similar statements made by prominent figures like Omokri had gone unprosecuted at that time. According to Onoh, this supports the argument that such statements were part of the broader public discourse rather than intentionally false fabrications. He cited the Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 1–3 and 83), which permits the introduction of prior inconsistent statements or comparative examples to counter the prosecution’s narrative.
Onoh also mentioned Ojo v. FRN (2006), where evidence of widespread similar conduct was deemed relevant in evaluating intent to harm. He insisted that Sowore’s courtroom approach is a legitimate defensive strategy, protected by the constitutional right to a fair trial under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Onoh dismissed Omokri’s statement as lacking genuine contrition or accountability, characterizing it instead as a calculated alignment with judicial outcomes—an acceptance of reality masquerading as an apology. He outlined his position point by point.
He contended that Omokri’s assertion of having spoken “believing them to be true,” while shifting responsibility to media outlets like Sahara Reporters, amounted to deflection rather than true remorse. Citing Airtel Networks Ltd v. Thisday Newspapers Ltd (2016), Onoh stated that an authentic apology in defamation cases must express unqualified regret, not excuses.
Regarding Omokri’s May 29, 2023, statement recognizing Tinubu as President and urging Nigerians to support him, Onoh argued that it merely acknowledged the inauguration—not a retraction of previous slanders—especially given that it occurred before the Supreme Court’s verdict.
On Omokri’s acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment (SC/CV/953/2023), which dismissed election petitions and affirmed that no disqualifying criminal convictions existed against Tinubu, Onoh remarked that this indicated compliance with constitutional finality under Section 287, not remorse for disseminating what Omokri later termed “fallacious” claims.
Onoh further analyzed Omokri’s subsequent media appearances on October 28, 2023; March 27, 2025; and June 11, 2025, noting that although Omokri admitted he was “wrong,” he frequently blamed the media, including Sowore. Onoh stated that while such tardy retractions may have procedural value, they lose moral weight due to their timing, citing Ojukwu v. Nwosu (2003), where courts ruled that late apologies do not fully mitigate damages.
Concerning Omokri’s claim of having issued a private apology to Tinubu on October 1, 2024—complete with prostration—Onoh called it dramatic but unverifiable, selectively private, and reactive to changing power dynamics rather than indicative of sincere, principled regret.
In conclusion, Onoh maintained that Omokri’s so-called “withdrawals” were compelled by unavoidable realities, including the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Tinubu’s victory and rejection of disqualification claims. He described the action as a pragmatic surrender to facts rather than moral accountability for spreading unverified allegations during a critical election cycle. According to Onoh, Sowore’s courtroom strategy merely exposes this contradiction, reinforcing his belief that accountability cannot be retrofitted as virtue after the damage has been done.
