Banire Threatens Online Platform With Lawsuit Over Alleged Defamation

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Dr Muiz Banire, has threatened court action against an online platform  PointBlank News and its publisher, Jackson Ude.

Dr Banire, through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, asked the publisher and his editor to retract a report that was published on the platform.

The editors of the platform, who were also sent copies of the letter, are Ben Young and Uduma Mba.

PointBlank News had reported a story titled, ‘Exclusive: $2BILLION BANK DEBT: NESTOIL, NECONDE, DEMAND $40MILLION REFUND FROM LAWYERS AFTER SUPREME COURT DEFEAT’

In the body of the story, the online platform reports that, “after suffering defeat at the Supreme Court, embattled Nestoil and Neconde have now demanded a refund of $40 million paid to their lawyers to secure a victory at the apex court, according to an insider. An embattled Nestoil, Neconde, and her owners had mobilised and allegedly paid $40 million to Muiz Banire and others to obtain a favourable judgment at the apex court in a case involving a $2 billion debt owed by a consortium of banks.”

But Olumide-Fusika, in a letter dated January 18, 2026, said his client was pained to be mentioned in connection with the nefarious activities and crimes asserted in the story.

He threatened court action if the publisher failed to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the report against his client.

Olumide-Fusika said, “The imputations conveyed by the above are very clear. Apart from imputations such as conspiracy to obtain and obtaining money under false pretence and conspiracy and attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to and punishable under sections … and … of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, …, my client, who is well-known for his advocacy against corruption and for reforms to fight corruption and restore public confidence in the administration of justice (and of its handmaidens, the legal profession) is particularly pained to be mentioned in connection with the nefarious activities and crimes asserted in your story purported to have been authored by your unnamed “Reporter” who in turn was purportedly fed with it by “an insider’ who is equally unnamed. For the above reason, | I am to beg and encourage you not to stop at what you have published but to help further expose the culprits…

“Even if bribery or attempt at bribery (such as you have alleged) is not done in the full glare of witnesses, you must at least, through your unnamed “insider’, have evidence of the “$40million paid to their lawyers to secure victory at the apex court”, and of the “collected $Smillion to vacate an order restraining Nestoil Limited and its affiliates from tampering with their assets following a S1billion debt’.

“My client, therefore, encourages you to publish these, to give credence to your story, and of his own alleged involvement in the imputed crimes. Failing the above, and for whatever it may be worth, against likely difficult defendants (if not impossible) to track down (assuming their names as disclosed and associated with the publication, are of persons that exist in reality), my client will be left with no option but to issue a writ against the trio of you in the court for defamation.

“In the meantime, you may wish to know and note that the only appearance my client has made before the Supreme Court as counsel in the matter between Neconde Energy Limited v FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & 4 Ors. (SC/CV/1130/2025) was on Monday the 12th day of January 2026 and that the entirety of the proceedings started and ended on the issue of appropriate legal representations for some of the parties in the case. For proper guidance of your perspective, a certified true copy of the one and only ruling or decision rendered on the day by the Supreme Court is hereto attached, and it reads: “Issue of representation which is on appeal before the Court of Appeal ought to be determined before the parties can be heard in this court. Accordingly, all four applications are hereby adjourned to 26/1/2026 for hearing after the ruling of the Court of Appeal”