Industrialist Aliko Dangote has threatened a massive lawsuit against a businessman from Kaduna. Through his lawyer, Dr. Ogwu James Onoja, Dangote sent a formal letter to Kailani Mohammed demanding a public retraction and apology. The ultimatum gives Mohammed seven days to comply or face a legal claim for one hundred billion naira in damages.
The dispute stems from comments made by Mohammed during a TrustTV interview. He reportedly questioned the origins of Dangote's wealth, specifically alluding to unspecified activities in Port Harcourt during the nineteen-eighties. Dangote's legal letter categorically denies that the businessman ever operated any venture in that city. It states the allegations are false and malicious, designed to damage his international reputation and lower his standing with global business partners. The letter insists Mohammed must publicly explain his claims on the same television platform, formally retract them, and issue a prominent apology.
Failure to meet these conditions will result in both civil litigation for defamation and a report to law enforcement for potential criminal prosecution. The letter emphasizes that such unsubstantiated public statements constitute an abuse of free speech rights.
The dispute stems from comments made by Mohammed during a TrustTV interview. He reportedly questioned the origins of Dangote's wealth, specifically alluding to unspecified activities in Port Harcourt during the nineteen-eighties. Dangote's legal letter categorically denies that the businessman ever operated any venture in that city. It states the allegations are false and malicious, designed to damage his international reputation and lower his standing with global business partners. The letter insists Mohammed must publicly explain his claims on the same television platform, formally retract them, and issue a prominent apology.
Failure to meet these conditions will result in both civil litigation for defamation and a report to law enforcement for potential criminal prosecution. The letter emphasizes that such unsubstantiated public statements constitute an abuse of free speech rights.
