Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr. Muiz Banire, has demanded an immediate retraction of a publication by online platform PointBlank News which accused him and other lawyers of collecting millions of dollars in bribes to influence court judgments, warning that failure to do so would result in a defamation lawsuit.
Banire, through his counsel, Adeyinka Patrick Olumide-Fusika, SAN, described the report titled “$2 Billion Bank Debt: Nestoil, Neconde Demand $40 Million Refund from Lawyers After Supreme Court Defeat” as false, malicious and gravely defamatory.
In a pre-action demand letter addressed to PointBlank News publisher Jackson Ude, Senior Editor (Africa) Ben Young, and Nigeria Editor Uduma Mba, Banire rejected allegations that he received part of an alleged $40 million paid to lawyers to secure a favourable judgment at the Supreme Court in a debt dispute involving Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited.
The publication also alleged that Banire was involved in a separate scheme at the Federal High Court, claiming that $5 million was paid to influence an order vacating asset-freezing directives in respect of a $1 billion debt.
According to the letter, the allegations conveyed clear imputations of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and attempt to pervert the course of justice, offences punishable under Nigerian criminal law.
Olumide-Fusika said Banire, who is widely known for his advocacy against corruption and for reforms aimed at restoring public confidence in the administration of justice and the legal profession, was deeply pained to be linked with what he described as nefarious activities and serious crimes asserted in the publication.
The senior lawyer faulted the report for relying on an unnamed “reporter” and an unnamed “insider,” noting that no evidence was presented to support the grave allegations.
He challenged the platform to publish verifiable proof of the alleged payments if such transactions truly occurred, insisting that even if bribery was not carried out in the full glare of witnesses, the purported source must possess evidence of the alleged $40 million paid to lawyers and the alleged $5 million collected to influence a court order.
Failing the production of such evidence, Banire warned that he would have no option but to institute a defamation action against the publisher and editors of the platform, notwithstanding any difficulty that may arise in identifying or locating those associated with the publication.
Banire also clarified the true position of events at the Supreme Court in the matter of Neconde Energy Limited v. FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & four others (SC/CV/1130/2025), stating that his only appearance in the case was on January 12, 2026, and that the proceedings on that day were limited strictly to the issue of legal representation for some of the parties.
He stressed that the Supreme Court did not hear or determine any substantive issues relating to the alleged debt.
A Certified True Copy of the ruling delivered on that date, which was attached to the letter, showed that the court merely adjourned the applications pending the determination of a related appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The ruling stated that the issue of representation, which was already before the Court of Appeal, had to be resolved before the Supreme Court could proceed to hear the parties.
Banire said this ruling clearly contradicted the publication’s suggestion that the Supreme Court had ruled on the substantive dispute or that any lawyer collected money to secure a favourable outcome.
He added that the publication’s reliance on an unnamed source suggested that the platform may have been misled, either deliberately or otherwise.
He therefore demanded an immediate retraction of the publication and reserved all his rights under the law.
As of the time of filing this report, PointBlank News had not issued any response or published a retraction.
Comments