Court Dismisses Suraju's Libel Lawsuit Against Former AGF Adoke Amid OPL 245 Controversy

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court located in Abuja has dismissed a libel suit initiated by Olanrewaju Suraju, who is the chairman of the HEDA Resource Centre, against former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke.

Mr. Suraju had accused Mr. Adoke of defamation related to a petition that was submitted to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) back in 2021.

According to reports, the petition referenced alleged forgery of an email and an orchestrated phone call intended to be presented as evidence in the OPL 245 criminal trial in Italy as well as civil cases in the United Kingdom.

In this regard, Mr. Adoke claimed that these documents were intended to frame him in the proceedings taking place in Italy. At that time, Mr. Adoke was facing prosecution in Nigeria concerning his alleged involvement in the OPL 245 case, and his name was being discussed in various international legal contexts.

Suraju sought damages totaling N100 million, arguing that Mr. Adoke's actions had caused him reputational harm. However, after reviewing the evidence, Judge Babangida Hassan ruled against Mr. Suraju on Wednesday, stating that he failed to prove his allegations, as reported by TheCable.

The judge noted that Mr. Suraju's evidence was effectively challenged and contradicted during the trial, rendering it untrustworthy. It was also established that Mr. Adoke's petition to the police did not mention Mr. Suraju by name, thereby failing to meet the criteria for defamation.

Additionally, the court deemed that sending a petition to law enforcement cannot itself be considered defamatory, as it is a citizen’s right to file such a petition.

Mr. Adoke chose not to defend himself in the case, asserting that Suraju's claims did not satisfy the fundamental prerequisites of a libel suit. The judge concurred, indicating there was no basis for Mr. Adoke to mount a defense, and subsequently dismissed the suit without imposing any costs.

In a related backstory, Suraju faced allegations of cyberstalking and disseminating false information regarding Mr. Adoke, leading to a separate case brought against him in the Federal High Court in Abuja in 2022. Initially, the police had recommended Suraju's prosecution for these charges following Mr. Adoke’s petition.

Suraju's libel suit was filed before these cyberstalking charges were formally lodged. Eventually, in May 2025, the Attorney-General's office withdrew the charges, prompting the judge to dismiss the case.

The saga surrounding OPL 245 has entangled Nigeria in multiple civil and criminal lawsuits in jurisdictions such as the UK, Italy, and the US, aimed at apprehending those perceived to have unlawfully benefited from the oil block deal and reclaiming the funds involved.

The disputed documents cited in Adoke's police petition featured prominently in an ongoing criminal case in Milan regarding an alleged $1.1 billion transfer orchestrated by Shell and Eni under the Nigerian government's mandate, ultimately benefiting a former petroleum minister, Dan Etete.

The controversies date back to 1998 when Etete awarded the OPL 245 block to his own company, Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd. Claims have been made that he bribed high-ranking officials within the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan following the controversial acquisition of OPL 245, one of Nigeria’s most profitable oil blocks.

During his tenure as AGF, Adoke had provided legal counsel to President Jonathan's administration concerning these transactions in order to resolve ownership disputes that had stalled exploration activities for years. His name was frequently associated with legal matters related to the OPL 245 deal.

However, in 2024, two Nigerian courts dismissed the charges against him due to a lack of credible evidence pointing to any wrongdoing, and a Milan court later acquitted Eni and Shell of related allegations.

Additionally, it was reported that two prosecutors in Milan faced conviction for neglecting their obligation to present evidence in the OPL 245 trial, which could have assisted the defendants.

In a recent development, an Italian appeals court upheld this conviction against the prosecutors involved.