US–based activist and academic Prof. Sandra Chidinma Duru, popularly known as Prof. Mgbeke, has dismissed reports suggesting that a Federal High Court has restrained her from speaking publicly or ordered the removal of her social media posts, describing such claims as false, misleading, and a deliberate misrepresentation of judicial proceedings.
Prof. Duru clarified while responding to widespread media reports following an alleged interlocutory injunction granted by a Federal High Court sitting in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in a suit instituted by the Senator representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
According to Prof. Duru, there is no court order barring her from speaking, responding, or addressing issues relating to herself or Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.
She further stated that the court did not grant any relief directing Meta Platforms Inc., operators of Facebook, or any other platform to delete her posts.
She maintained that the ruling reaffirmed a long-established principle of law that truth is a complete defence to defamation, stressing that the publication of verified facts does not amount to defamation under Nigerian law. Prof. Duru added that she remains legally entitled to correct falsehoods, defend her reputation, and place facts on record where she has been maliciously misrepresented.
“Defamation has a clear legal meaning. It does not extend to factual statements, evidence-based disclosures, or lawful responses to reputational attacks,” she said, warning that any attempt to misstate the legal position amounts either to ignorance of the law or an intentional effort to mislead the public.
She further alleged that she had been criminally defamed through what she described as coordinated and sponsored actions linked to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, adding that Nigerian law and international legal standards entitle her to respond, clarify, and correct the record with facts.
Prof. Duru also cautioned against what she described as attempts to weaponise misinformation, court processes, or sensational media headlines to intimidate or silence her, insisting that “the law does not protect deception, and the law does not punish truth.” She urged members of the public to disregard fabricated narratives and rely solely on verified court records and primary sources.
She said further, “Truth is not defamation. Defending oneself against false allegations is lawful.
“Where I am subjected to derogatory names or remarks, I will continue to respond accordingly by correcting the record with facts, evidence, and truthful descriptions grounded in verifiable events.
“Such responses are proportionate, lawful, and made strictly in self defense.
“All statements I have made are based on verifiable facts, documents, and events within my personal knowledge.
“I am exercising my fundamental right to clarify the record and respond to false narratives concerning me.
“Publishing factual information and evidence in self defense does not constitute defamation under the law.
She concluded by saying that facts remain facts. Truth does not become defamation because it is inconvenient.
