Omoyele Sowore, politician, human rights activist, and convener of #RevolutionNow, has bombed former governor of Ekiti State, Dr Kayode Fayemi, calling him a thief, and a man of no integrity.
This and more are contained in a 47 paragraph affidavit Sowore filed before a Federal High Court, Abuja in defence of a libel suit filed against him and Sahara Reporters by Fayemi before the court.
In the 47-paragraph defendants’ joint statement of defence in suit No: FCT/HC/CV 2062/2021 between Fayemi as Claimant and Mr. Omoyele Sowore (founder Chairman & Director Sahara Reporters Limited, Publishers of Sahara Reporters) and Sahara Reporters Limited as 1st and 2nd Defendants, Sowore tells the court that the Claimant is a thief who has no reputation.
In the statement of defence, Sowore asks the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs, arguing that Fayemi has no reputation to protect. Sowore’s counsel, Tope Temokun Esq., submitted the statement on June 10, 2024, asserting that contrary to Fayemi’s claims of piety and incorruptibility, the people of Ekiti State and Nigeria have a different perception of him.
The defendants pointed out that the claimant, Fayemi, was charged in January 2018 with financial impropriety offenses in the High Court of Ekiti State (Charge No: HAD/5c/2018 – The State Vs. Dr. John Kayode Fayemi and Mr. Vincent Dapo Kolawole).
The charges included refusing to obey a witness summons, attempting to prevent or defeat the course of justice, criminal contempt, and abuse of office.
Additionally, the defendants alleged that Fayemi secured a N20 billion loan from a bank to build an international cargo airport in Ado Ekiti, despite rejecting an offer from Aare Afe Babalola SAN to contribute to the project, claiming that the state had sufficient funds to complete the airport. This contradicts Fayemi’s claims of uprightness and incorruptibility.
The defendants noted that the cargo airport in Ado-Ekiti, inaugurated on October 15, 2022, was not fully completed, despite claims by the claimant, John Olukayode Fayemi, that it was a world-class facility. Fayemi had tweeted that the airport could accommodate large aircraft and had a terminal building capable of handling both local and international travelers.
However, the defendants argue that the airport remains unfinished, with no other aircraft landing there since its inauguration. They also noted that the Ekiti State Government disclosed in its 2023 budget presentation that over N16.5 billion had been spent on the airport’s construction, but the control tower, passenger terminal, and runway remain incomplete. The defendants questioned the claimant’s assertions about the airport’s capabilities and suggested that the inauguration was misleading.
The defendants referred to a statement made by the Special Adviser to Governor Biodun Oyebanji on Budget and Economic Planning, Mr. Niyi Adebayo, regarding the cargo airport in Ado-Ekiti. Adebayo said that while military aircraft can land without navigational aids, commercial planes required a functional control tower, a new terminal, and adequate lighting infrastructure to ensure safe landings. The defendants intend to rely on a report published by Leadership Newspaper on the cargo airport and alleged that when the banks funding the project refused additional loans, the Ekiti State Government sought financial assistance from Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) to complete the project.
They note that Babalola pledged N4 billion, with N2 billion already disbursed, but instead of appreciation, the claimant, Fayemi, has subjected Babalola to unjustified attacks in the media.
The defendants also mentioned a petition by concerned Ekiti citizens to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate alleged treasury looting by Fayemi, which they intend to rely on in the trial.
The defendants noted that on May 19, 2021, the claimant, John Olukayode Fayemi, launched the “Ekiti Rice Pyramid” in Ado Ekiti State, with former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, in attendance. The project was aimed to support three million rice farmers and enhance the country’s agricultural value chain.
However, the defendants argued that despite Fayemi’s assurances that the project would increase Ekiti State’s annual rice production from 34,700 to 15 million metric tonnes and create 12,000 jobs, the funds collected for the project were instead diverted during his tenure.
“Hence, Ekiti State did not join Kebbi, Ebonyi and other states that became rice producers through the Anchor Borrowers Programme,” the Defendants add.
“The claimant is hereby given notice to produce the account of the money received from the Central Bank of Nigeria for the ‘Ekiti Rice Pyramid,’” the Defendants stated.
The defendants argued that the claimant, John Olukayode Fayemi, diverted the London/Paris Club refund of N2.4 billion intended for the 16 Local Government Councils in Ekiti State. They request that Fayemi produce the account for the refund.
The defendants also argued that Fayemi caused the Ekiti State Government to take a $20 million loan to combat COVID-19, despite a committee of Ekiti State indigenes raising funds and materials to fight the pandemic. The defendants allege that Fayemi diverted the loan.
The defendants reference a Judicial Panel of Inquiry constituted in 2017 to investigate Ekiti State’s finances between 2010 and 2014. The panel indicted Fayemi for various offenses, including the diversion of N4.995 billion and N5 billion from Ekiti State bonds earmarked for projects in the state. The defendants argue that these allegations contradict Fayemi’s claims of uprightness and incorruptibility.
The Defendants noted that the claimant was “indicted in the stealing the sum of N179, 979, 441.77 (One Hundred and Seventy-Nine Million, Nine Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty-One, Seventy-Seven Kobo) only being the outstanding sum from the Ekiti State Bond proceed sum of N335, 500, 000.00 released for the renovation of Ado Ekiti water marks, out of which only N155, 523, 58 was expended”.
Also according to the Defendants, the claimant was indicted in stealing the sum of N468,645,000.00 only being the sum of money earmarked in the Bond Prospectus titled ‘Ekiti State Government of Nigeria, Offer for subscription of N20, 000, 000, 000.00 (Twenty Billion Naira) only. 14.5% Fixed Rate Bond Due 2018 under the Ekiti State Government of Nigeria N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Billion Naira) Only Bond Issuance Programme and released for the Construction of Ero water works”.
Some other offenses noted by the panel are “stealing the sum of N468,645,000.00 (Four Hundred Sixty Eight Million, Six Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Naira) only being the sum of money earmarked in the Bond Prospectus titled “Ekiti State Government of Nigeria, Offer for subscription of N20, 000, 000, 000.00 (Twenty Billion Naira) only, 14.5% Fixed Rate Bond Due 2018 under the Ekiti State Government of Nigeria, N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Billion Naira) Only Bond Issuance Programme and released for the Construction of Ero water works.
“For stealing the sum of N2,750,000,000.00 (Two Billion, Seven Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) only being the sum of money earmarked in the Bond prospectus titled “Ekiti State Government of Nigeria, Offer for subscription of N20, 000,000,000.00 (Twenty Billion Naira) Only. 14.5% fixed Rate Bond Due 2018 under the Ekiti State Government of Nigeria N25, 000,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Billion Naira) only Bond issuance Programme and released for the construction of Ultra Modern Market in Ekiti State which the Claimant never built.
“For stealing the sum of N716, 688, 790. 92 (Seven Hundred Sixteen Million, Six Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Naira, Ninety Two Kobo)only being outstanding fund from the Ekiti State Bond Proceed sum of N750, 000,000,000.92 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Billion Naira, Ninety Two Kobo) only earmarked and released for the construction of Ekiti State School of Agriculture, out of which only N33, 311,209.08 (Thirty Three Million, Three Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Nine Naira, Eight kobo) only was expended.
“For stealing N198, 860, 023.00 (One Hundred and Ninety Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand and Twenty Naira) Only being outstanding fund from the Ekiti State Bond Proceed sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) only earmarked and released for the Construction of Ekiti State Liaison Office in Lagos, out of which only N301, 139.977.00 (Three Hundred and One Million, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven Naira) only was expended for the said construction.
“For stealing of N681, 347, 255.22 (Six Hundred Eighty One Million, Three Hundred Forty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Five Naira, Twenty Two Kobo) only being outstanding fund from the Ekiti State Bond proceed sum of N767.970,167.47 (Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy Thousand. One Hundred and Sixty Seven Naira, Forty Seven Kobo) only released for the renovation of Governor’s office out of which only N87623.912, (Eighty Seven Million, Six Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twelve Naira, Twenty two kobo) only was expended for the renovation.”
In paragraph 44, the Defendants argue that the publication in question was a fair report based on public interest, contrary to the Claimant’s allegations of libel in paragraphs 67 and 68. They contend that the Claimant’s history, as revealed in the Report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Ekiti State’s finances (2010-2014) dated December 13, 2017, supports the report’s accuracy.
Therefore, the Defendants assert that the Claimant is not entitled to exemplary and aggravated damages, injunctive relief, or a public apology.
The Defendants intend to present evidence in this lawsuit to demonstrate that the Claimant’s reputation is not as impeccable as claimed.
They will argue that the Claimant’s past actions, including allegations of financial mismanagement and abuse of office during his tenure as Ekiti State governor, has already tarnished his reputation, making it impossible to damage it further.
Additionally, the Defendants will challenge the suit’s competence, citing the absence of necessary parties and the court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the case.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com