Defamation: Court restrains activist, orders Facebook to remove posts on Senator Natasha

A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained UK-based activist Dr. Sandra Duru, also known as Prof Mgbeke, and Meta Platforms Inc., operator of Facebook, from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory content about Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

The court granted an interim injunction pending the determination of the substantive suit, holding that the matter raised “a serious question to be tried” and that failure to act could result in “irreparable damage” to the senator’s reputation. Justice I. Mohammed delivered the ruling in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, following a motion on notice filed by the claimant seeking urgent judicial protection against what she described as sustained online attacks.

In a Certified True Copy of the ruling sighted in Abuja, the court held that immediate intervention was necessary to prevent further harm, stressing that the application established grounds requiring preservatory orders. Justice Mohammed consequently directed that the first defendant, Sandra Duru, “either by herself, her agents, privies, or howsoever called, is restrained from further publishing, posting, sharing, disseminating or promoting on Facebook or any other social media platform any material containing defamatory, scandalous, inciteful or injurious content against the applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

In a related order, the court directed Meta Platforms Inc. to “immediately take down and/or disable access to all offending publications, posts or broadcasts made by the 1st Defendant against the Claimant, whether in her personal name or under the pseudonym ‘Prof Mgbeke,’ pending the determination of the suit.”

The social media company was further ordered to preserve electronic evidence relevant to the dispute. The court stated that the second defendant must “preserve, secure, and archive all content, metadata and digital footprints associated with the offending posts and user accounts operated by the 1st Defendant, for the purpose of aiding this Honourable Court in the fair determination of the substantive suit.”

Justice Mohammed emphasised that injunctions of this nature are preservatory, explaining that such orders are designed “to prevent irreparable harm, maintain the status quo ante bellum, and ensure that the subject matter of the dispute is not altered before final judgment.” He added that “Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan established a clear prima facie case of ongoing defamation, with irreparable harm to reputation that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages alone,” and noted that “the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the Applicant.”

The judge also addressed Meta’s role, noting that the claimant had placed the platform on notice through formal complaints identifying specific links and content. He observed the allegation that Meta’s failure to act “enabled the continued accessibility of the defamatory materials and facilitated further attacks,” adding that the issue raised serious questions for trial.

The development comes eight months after Duru released what she described as evidence from exclusive phone conversations, which she claimed showed that the then suspended lawmaker lied against Senate President Godswill Akpabio over a controversial sexual harassment allegation. 

Speaking during a Facebook Live session monitored by a correspondent, the activist also alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to induce her with N200 million to falsely accuse the former Akwa Ibom State governor of organ harvesting.