By Chimdiogo Amuh 

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has restrained a United Kingdom–based activist, Dr Sandra Duru, also known as Prof Mgbeke, and Meta Platforms Inc., operators of Facebook, from publishing or circulating alleged defamatory content against 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 continued publication could cause irreparable damage to the senator’s reputation.

The ruling, delivered by Justice I. Mohammed in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, followed a motion on notice filed by the claimant, who sought urgent judicial intervention over what she described as sustained online attacks on her character.

In a Certified True Copy of the ruling sighted in Abuja, the court held that immediate intervention was necessary to preserve the status quo and protect the claimant from further reputational harm pending the outcome of the case.

Justice Mohammed consequently ordered that the first defendant, Dr Duru, “whether by herself, her agents, privies or any person howsoever called,” should desist from further publishing, posting, sharing, disseminating or promoting on Facebook or any other social media platform any material deemed defamatory, scandalous, inciteful or injurious to the applicant.

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

The court further ordered the social media company to preserve all electronic evidence connected to the dispute, mandating Meta to “preserve, secure and archive all content, metadata and digital footprints” associated with the alleged defamatory posts and user accounts operated by the first defendant, to aid the fair resolution of the case.

Justice Mohammed emphasised that the injunction was preservatory rather than punitive, noting that such orders are meant 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.

The judge held that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had established a prima facie case of ongoing defamation, adding that the alleged injury to her reputation could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone. He also ruled that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, given the risk of continued reputational damage.

The court took note of the claimant’s allegation that the first defendant engaged in a sustained and malicious campaign of cyberbullying, harassment and defamation, allegedly publishing no fewer than 30 posts between May and October 2025. The publications were said to have gone viral, exposing the claimant to hostility, security threats and emotional distress.

Addressing Meta’s role, the court observed that the claimant had placed the platform on notice through formal complaints identifying specific links and content. Justice Mohammed noted that the allegation that Meta failed to act raised serious issues for determination at trial.

The development comes months after Dr Duru released what she described as evidence from alleged phone conversations, which she claimed showed that the then-suspended lawmaker made false allegations against the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, over a sexual harassment claim.

The activist had also alleged during a Facebook Live session that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to induce her with N200 million to falsely accuse the former Akwa Ibom State governor of organ harvesting—claims now subject to judicial scrutiny.