The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Zuba, Abuja, delivered on July 11, 2025, by Hon. Justice K.N. Ogbonnaya, in the N500 million libel suit filed by former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, against Lilian Onoh, a former Nigerian ambassador to Namibia, has emerged
In the ruling, the court dismissed the N2 billion counterclaim filed by Ms. Onoh against Mr. Onyeama, describing it as unmeritorious and unsupported by evidence.
Onyeama had instituted the suit against Onoh, who was dismissed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is also the sister of his former wife, alleging that she defamed him in a series of memos she addressed to him.
He urged the court to award him N500 million in damages against Onoh and two media organisations, Akelicious Media Company and Newswire Law & Event Magazine, for publishing defamatory material.
However, in her counterclaim filed in 2023, Onoh asked the court to impose a N2 billion penalty on the former minister, alleging that his “malicious” suit caused her severe emotional trauma and upheaval.
Justice Ogbonnaya, in her judgment, held that the documents presented by Onoh in support of her case did not substantiate her counterclaim. She further ruled that some of the reliefs sought by the former ambassador were unknown to law, such as her request for the court to reimburse expenses she incurred during virtual Zoom hearings.
“So the submission she made on the document in her counter-claim is of no monument in that regard, and did not support her counter-claim. Besides, the prayers in her counter-claim are even ungrantable as most of them are unknown to law as already stated above.
“The counter-claim is not established. it lacks merit and is therefore hereby dismissed by this Court.
“There is merit in the case of the Claimant/Defendant to counter-claim, and this Court enters Judgment in his favour,” the judge held.
Back Story
SaharaReporters had, on September 22, 2021, reported that a seven-man investigative committee indicted former Nigerian Ambassador to Namibia, Lilian Onoh, over alleged financial misappropriation.
The panel accused Onoh of illegally diverting funds meant for the day-to-day operations of the mission and recommended that she refund $45,539.11 (about N19 million), $70,448 (about N30 million), and N614,000. The committee, chaired by the then-Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Gabriel Aduda, also included a representative of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The probe was set up by then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Geoffrey Onyeama, following corruption allegations Onoh had made against officials of the Nigerian Mission in Namibia. The team travelled to Windhoek, Namibia, on April 12, 2021, where they were received by Ali Gombe, who was the Chargé d’Affaires.
After its investigation, the panel directed Onoh to refund several sums, including: $42,500 as an education supplement for her adopted daughters; $2,614 as “excess payment on AIE; N66,168 for airfare of two domestic staff; $425 for stopover expenses for the same staff; N34,000 for an extra night in an Abuja hotel; N312,000 for hotel accommodation (11–17 December, 2017) and N268,200 for guest hotel accommodation (26–31 December, 2018).
Attempts to Undermine the Probe
Sources told SaharaReporters that Onoh repeatedly tried to suppress or distort the committee’s report to avoid disciplinary measures. She allegedly enlisted intermediaries to lobby Onyeama for a “soft landing” and a clean bill of record. When the minister refused, it was said that she resorted to blackmail.
In an attempt to alter the narrative and disrupt the administrative process, Onoh filed a defamatory petition against Onyeama and copied then-President Muhammadu Buhari. SaharaReporters further learnt that when the Presidency cleared the minister of wrongdoing and upheld the recommendation against her for bringing the ministry and civil service into disrepute, she leaked her petition to the media as part of a campaign of blackmail.
Controversial Career
Sources also alleged that Onoh had previously been rejected by some host countries for being combative, confrontational, and disrespectful to authorities. At one point, she was reportedly dismissed from service, but her removal was reversed due to her influence as the daughter of the late Chief C.C. Onoh, a former Governor of old Anambra State.
Onoh’s Reaction
In response to SaharaReporters’ publication, Onoh demanded a retraction and a public apology within 48 hours, insisting that it be given the same prominence as the original story. She argued that the report had damaged her reputation as well as that of her late father and threatened legal action if her demands were not met.
In a letter, Onoh, through her solicitors, accused SaharaReporters of publishing false and defamatory claims that had severely damaged her reputation as well as that of her late father, Chief Onoh.
Her lawyers stated that the publication contained fabricated figures and misrepresented facts, including the dates and findings of a House of Representatives panel that visited Windhoek, Namibia, in April 2021. They maintained that all entitlements received by Onoh were strictly in line with her letter of appointment, and denied that she collected the sums alleged in the report.
The legal team challenged SaharaReporters to produce the certified true copy of the House panel’s report to substantiate its claims, insisting that the story was intended to malign Onoh’s image.
They demanded an unreserved apology and retraction within 48 hours, to be given the same prominence as the original publication, and for the report to be removed from all platforms. They warned that failure to comply would result in a N5 billion defamation suit against the organisation and its principal officers.
Onoh Sues SaharaReporters
In November 2024, Onoh filed a defamation lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, against Sahara Reporters Media Group Inc., Sahara Reporters Inc., and Comrade Omoyele Sowore.
US Court Dismisses Case
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on Monday, January 13, the court held that the plaintiff, Lilian Onoh, had failed to defeat a factual attack, stressing that a plaintiff “must prove the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence” and is “obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain his burden of proof.”
In Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-2838-B, presiding Judge Jane Boyle explained that Onoh, a former Nigerian ambassador, had alleged the defendants published a false report accusing her of illegally diverting Nigerian government funds.
“Onoh asserts state-law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. Onoh alleges that Sahara Reporters Media Group, Inc. and Sahara Reporters, Inc. are citizens of New York and Sowore ‘is an individual residing in’ New Jersey. Onoh is a Nigerian citizen who ‘resides in’ Texas,” the court document read.
The case was robustly defended by a global law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, with Doug Brown as the lead lawyer.
Responding, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
Considering their Motion, the presiding Judge held that, “Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is limited; federal courts may entertain only those cases involving a question of federal law or those where the parties are of diverse citizenship.
“In diversity cases, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.
“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may evaluate ‘the complaint alone; the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’”
The court noted that “a ‘factual attack’ on jurisdiction is based on matters outside the pleadings”.
“To defeat a factual attack, a plaintiff ‘must prove the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence’ and is ‘obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain his burden of proof,’” it added.
Giving reason for the dismissal of the suit, the court held: “Onoh alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. 9, Am. Compl., 15.
“Under § 1332, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00. Complete diversity exists when the controversy is between ‘citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.’
“But complete diversity is destroyed when there are foreign parties on both sides of the dispute. ‘A lawful permanent resident domiciled in a state is not a citizen of that state-he is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.’”
“Here, both Onoh and Sowore are foreign parties, so the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction,” the court explicitly stated.