Chief (Mrs) Dorcas Adeyinka, founder of the Dorcas Adeyinka Empowerment Foundation, has demanded the immediate removal of alleged defamatory videos published on TikTok and other online platforms, as well as a public apology from their alleged publisher.
The demand was contained in a pre-action notice dated October 21, 2026, issued by Khalif Legal on behalf of Adeyinka and addressed to Bello Sikirat Aderonke, who the law firm identified as the operator of a TikTok account known as “OmoGoldenPen”.
The letter accused Aderonke of publishing videos on October 15 and 18, 2026, which the lawyers alleged contained false and damaging statements about their client’s marriage, family and personal life.
The letter was signed by N. Osalami, Esq., counsel in chambers at Khalif Legal.
According to the notice, the videos were allegedly circulated through the TikTok account and platforms identified as “Bukky OTV”, “House of Tms Blog” and “TmsBlog London”.
The law firm said the publications had exposed its client to ridicule and public criticism, while threatening the reputation she had built through her family life, public engagements and charitable activities.
“We act as solicitors to Chief (Mrs) Dorcas Adeyinka (hereinafter referred to as ‘our client’), and on whose firm and unequivocal instructions we write to you concerning your false, malicious and defamatory publications against her,” the letter stated.
Describing Adeyinka’s public profile, the lawyers said she was “a wife and a mother”, a public speaker on Facebook and TikTok, and the founder of the Dorcas Adeyinka Empowerment Foundation, an organisation they described as being devoted to empowering members of the public.
The lawyers maintained that the foundation’s charitable activities depended on public confidence and credibility, which they alleged had been undermined by the videos.
In the notice, Khalif Legal alleged that Aderonke made statements concerning an alleged romantic encounter involving Adeyinka and a police officer, as well as claims relating to the paternity of Adeyinka’s son.
The lawyers disputed the allegations and insisted that the claims were untrue.
“We state unequivocally that these allegations made by you are false, malicious and defamatory. They are untrue in every material sense, and you have no lawful or honest basis for making them,” the letter stated.
The firm further alleged that the publications portrayed its client as an unfaithful wife and a woman of loose moral character, thereby exposing her to “hatred, contempt, ridicule and public opprobrium”.
It also argued that the videos had reached a potentially wide audience because they were published on public social media platforms.
“The damage orchestrated by you continues to spread across social media platforms, and it threatens the reputation of the foundation and her blogs, which depend on public trust,” the lawyers stated.
The notice further questioned the basis for the allegations and asked what relationship, if any, existed between the claims made in the videos and the parties involved.
The allegations contained in the letter have not been independently verified. A response from Aderonke was not included in the material made available for this report.
Khalif Legal gave Aderonke seven days from receipt of the letter to remove the videos, retract the statements and tender an unreserved public apology.
The lawyers demanded that the apology be published on the same platforms used to circulate the disputed content. They also requested publication of a retraction in three national newspapers.
The notice stated: “TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby given SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of receipt of this letter to remove the viral video content and tender unreserved apology on the same page you used in sharing the content and also publish a full-page advert in three national newspapers retracting the statement made.”
The firm warned that failure to comply within the stipulated period would leave its client with no alternative but to commence legal proceedings.
“TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT FAILURE to comply within the stipulated period will leave our client with no alternative but to, without further notice to you, commence civil and criminal proceedings against you,” the letter stated.
It said that the proposed civil action could seek substantial and punitive damages, a permanent injunction and other remedies available under Nigerian law.
The lawyers also reserved their client’s rights to pursue claims relating to alleged cyberstalking, cyberbullying, libel or slander, depending on the circumstances and applicable law.
In support of its position, the firm cited Nigerian judicial decisions on defamation, including Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd v. Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 678, and Guardian Newspapers Ltd v. Ajeh.
The notice argued that the disputed statements referred to Adeyinka and were capable of damaging her reputation in the eyes of members of the public.
It further contended that allegations imputing adultery or sexual misconduct to a married woman could ground a defamation claim, subject to the applicable legal principles.
The lawyers also referred to the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended, in setting out their concerns over online publications.
However, the Cybercrimes Act was amended in 2024, including changes to Section 24. Any potential criminal liability would therefore depend on the precise conduct alleged and the applicable provisions of the amended law.
Describing the correspondence as a final pre-action notice, the firm said it was issued without prejudice to any of its client’s rights and remedies.
“Kindly treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves,” the lawyers stated.
Comments
Post a Comment