(DDM) – Hundreds of protesters filled the streets outside Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Wednesday, rallying behind Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, widely known as Mo Chara, a member of the politically charged Irish rap group Kneecap.

Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) gathered that Mo Chara has been charged with allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag during a performance in London in 2024. The Lebanese organization is classified as a terrorist group under UK law.

The case has sparked global conversations about free speech, artistic expression, and the extent of counterterrorism measures in democratic societies.

Mo Chara has firmly denied the allegations, calling the case a “carnival of distraction” designed to divert attention from the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Court Drama and Public Outcry

Supporters waved Palestinian flags and held banners as the 27-year-old rapper arrived at the courthouse, escorted by fellow bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh.

Chants of “Free Mo Chara” filled the air as photographers struggled to capture the dramatic scene amid a chaotic press scrum.

Inside the courtroom, legal arguments centered on whether the case had been brought within the six-month statutory limit required for such charges.

Judge Paul Goldspring adjourned the matter until September 26, 2025, when he will issue a decision on whether the trial will proceed.

Mo Chara spoke briefly, confirming his name, date of birth, and address, but refrained from entering a plea.

As he exited, protesters renewed their chants, calling on the authorities to “drop the charges now” and vowing to return in even larger numbers at the next hearing.

Background on Kneecap and UK Terror Laws

Formed in Belfast in 2017, Kneecap is known for its unapologetically political lyrics, often performed in the Irish language, and for addressing themes such as nationalism, resistance, and social inequality.

The band rose to international prominence following performances across Europe and the United States, including a high-profile appearance at the Coachella music festival in California in early 2024.

During the Coachella performance, the group displayed messages condemning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, further fueling debate about their political stance.

Under the UK’s Terrorism Act, displaying or wearing symbols associated with a proscribed organization can be considered an offense, even when done in the context of political protest or artistic performance.

Free Speech or National Security?

Critics argue that the charge against Mo Chara reflects an overly broad interpretation of counterterrorism laws, one that risks stifling legitimate political expression.

Supporters contend that the rapper’s actions fall squarely within the realm of artistic commentary and should not be criminalized.

Civil rights groups have described the prosecution as part of a growing trend in which political symbols are policed with increasing rigidity, particularly in cases relating to Middle Eastern conflicts.

Observers warn that the outcome of the September hearing could set a major precedent, either reinforcing or relaxing how far artists can go in expressing controversial views through their work.

(DDM) – Allegations of selective justice have resurfaced following claims that former Delta State Governor, Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa, has been cleared of corruption charges after reportedly aligning with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) gathered that the issue began after reports in late 2024 suggested that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had arrested and detained Okowa over alleged involvement in a N1.3 trillion fraud case.

The Nation newspaper had, at the time, reported the arrest and confirmed EFCC’s detention of the ex-governor, sparking intense public debate.

Okowa, who governed Delta State between 2015 and 2023 under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was accused of massive financial mismanagement during his tenure.

Critics alleged that funds meant for infrastructural development and social services in the oil-rich state were misappropriated, with some linking the alleged diversion to inflated contracts and questionable project executions.

The EFCC, according to earlier statements, had maintained that investigations were ongoing and that no stone would be left unturned in prosecuting those found culpable.

However, recent developments have triggered outrage among opposition voices, activists, and sections of the public.

Political commentators now claim that since Okowa’s alleged defection to the APC, his “sins” have been “forgiven” and the case quietly shelved.

They argue that this move reinforces fears that Nigeria’s anti-corruption fight is selective, shielding political allies while targeting opponents.

Some opposition figures described the situation as “a mockery of the justice system” and “proof that political loyalty, not integrity, determines who gets prosecuted.”

The APC leadership, on the other hand, has neither officially confirmed nor denied Okowa’s membership, leaving room for speculation and heated political commentary.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration has often insisted that it remains committed to fighting corruption, regardless of political affiliation.

However, the growing perception that joining the ruling party can offer immunity from prosecution threatens to undermine public trust in government institutions.

Okowa’s political journey has been closely watched, especially after serving as Vice Presidential candidate to Atiku Abubakar in the 2023 general elections.

Following the PDP’s defeat, his political relevance appeared to wane, but recent alignments have reignited interest in his career.

Human rights groups are now demanding transparency from both the EFCC and the APC on the status of the N1.3 trillion fraud allegations.

They insist that only a clear, public update on the case will restore confidence in the fight against corruption.

Meanwhile, EFCC’s official spokesperson has declined to comment on whether the investigation is ongoing or concluded.

For many Nigerians, the Okowa saga is another test of the country’s ability to hold leaders accountable without political bias.

Until clarity emerges, the debate over selective justice and political immunity is likely to dominate Nigeria’s political discourse.

🚨 Follow DDM WhatsApp channel Now!

Get breaking news, hot gist, and updates FIRST!

*📲 Click to join 👇* https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vajkwdc4dTnFHl19vW3g

*Apply at the link below and Start Your Tech Journey:*

👇🏽

https://www.ddm.media/cohort-6

(DDM) – The All Progressives Congress (APC), led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has begun subtle but visible campaign activities across Nigeria, despite the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) yet to release the official timetable for the 2027 general elections.

Billboards, posters, and indirect endorsements have started appearing in various parts of the country, signaling a premature political push by the ruling party.

The development was brought to public attention on social media by Hon. Comrade Gbagba Abdulrasheed Ibraheemalfa, who condemned the move as a flagrant violation of Nigeria’s electoral laws.

According to INEC’s electoral guidelines, such activities are unlawful at this stage and punishable under the law.

Section 94(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 clearly states that campaigns in public by political parties can only commence 150 days before the scheduled election date and must end 24 hours before election day.

This means that any political campaign, whether direct or indirect, carried out more than two years ahead of the polls violates the electoral law.

Critics have described the APC’s move as a blatant show of desperation and a dangerous disregard for the law, especially since the actions are reportedly being driven from the highest level of government.

Political observers note that it is unprecedented for a ruling party to openly flout electoral regulations in such a manner without fear of repercussions.

Some opposition figures have questioned whether INEC has the political will to sanction the APC, given its current position as the ruling party with presidential backing.

Analysts say early campaigns can give an unfair advantage to the incumbent government, allowing it to leverage state resources for political purposes long before the official campaign period begins.

They also warn that such actions could further erode public trust in Nigeria’s democratic process, where the rule of law is often undermined by political interests.

With the APC’s early campaign machinery already visible on streets, highways, and social media, concerns are growing over the silence of electoral authorities and civil society groups.

DDM gathered that in previous election cycles, INEC had issued warnings to political parties for early campaigning, but enforcement has historically been weak.

For now, the APC appears unbothered by potential legal consequences, continuing its publicity blitz as if in full campaign mode.

The development raises a critical question, if the presidency itself is associated with this premature political activity, who will have the authority and courage to call the party to order?

Many Nigerians are now watching to see whether INEC will take action or allow this as yet another example of selective enforcement of the law in the country’s political space.

Written by Hon. Comrade Gbagba Abdulrasheed Ibraheemalfa

🚨 Follow DDM WhatsApp channel Now!

Get breaking news, hot gist, and updates FIRST!

*📲 Click to join 👇* https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vajkwdc4dTnFHl19vW3g

*Apply at the link below and Start Your Tech Journey:*

👇🏽

https://www.ddm.media/cohort-6

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has slammed a sixty billion Naira defamation suit against locaqious Reno Omokri, who he claimed, damaged his reputation.

The suit was instituted in the High Court of Enugu State, holden at Enugu, filed by Aloy Ejimakor, Esq., on behalf of Mazi Kanu.

Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) is in possession of the Form 2 issued by the court and served on Mr. Omokri.

In Nigerian law, Form 2 refers to a General Form of Writ of Summons, which is a legal document used to initiate civil proceedings in court.

This form is used when a claimant (plaintiff) wants to sue a defendant in a civil matter.

It’s essentially the formal notice that a legal action has been filed and that the defendant is required to respond.

How it all started

Nnamdi Kanu, the Plaintiff, had approached the court in the suit, with case no: E/1034/2025, instituted for himself and on behalf of IPOB, with Reno Omokri as the Defendant.

The Writ of Summons Order 3, Rule 3, dated July 31, 2025, and signed by the Registrar of the court, reads follows:

“Reno Omokri, you are hereby commanded within forty-two (42) days after the service of this writ on you, inclusive of the day of such services, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in an action at the suit of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“And take notice that in default of your so doing the plaintiff may proceed in your absence, and judgment may be given.”

Kanu made claim for general damages in the sum of N50,000,000,000.00 (fifty billion Naira) for defamation, including injury to reputation, emotional distress, and prejudice to ongoing judicial proceedings.

He also made claim for aggravated damages in the sum of N10,000,000,000.00 (ten billion Naira) for the malicious and reckless publication of false statements by Omokri.

The Plaintiff further prayed the court for:

1. An order directing the Defendant to publish a full retraction of the defamatory statements in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account within 7 days of the court’s judgment.
2. An order directing the Defendant to publish a public apology to the Plaintiff in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account, admitting to the misrepresentation of facts.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant his agents, privies, or assigns from further publishing or disseminating such defamatory or prejudicial statements about the Plaintiff without lawful justification.
4. Costs of this action, including legal fees and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff.
5. Interest on all monetary awards at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.

“Facts of the claim” against Omokri

In the Statement of Claim against Omokri, Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer stated as follows:

“The Plaintiff is a Nigerian citizen, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and a person of high public standing, currently facing trial in Nigeria.

“Facts of the claim: The Plaintiff is a well-known public figure and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an organization advocating for the self-determination of its people within the contraption, Nigeria.

“On or about 6/7/2025, the Defendant published or caused to be published, in his verified Twitter (X) account… certain statements concerning the Plaintiff, falsely alleging that the Plaintiff and IPOB were responsible for the killing of soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel, as well as acts of violence attributed to so-called “Unknown Gunmen.”

“The said publication is reproduced below in its original nature-

““Do you know how many Nigerian soldiers, police officers, customs, immigration, and prison officers, as well as NSCDC servicemen and women, have been killed by IPOB, ESN, and Unknown Gunmen in the Southeast, of which the majority have been from Northern Nigeria?”

“The said publication further described the Plaintiff and IPOB as engaging in terrorist activities, including the operations of the Eastern Security Network (ESN), without lawful justification or evidence.

“The said statements are false, baseless, prejudicial, and defamatory, as they portray the Plaintiff as a criminal and a terrorist, thereby injuring his reputation, character, exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and prejudicing his ongoing judicial proceedings in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/15 pending at the Federal High Court Abuja.

“Plaintiff contends that as of the date of the malicious statements (6/7/2025), no court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria has convicted the Plaintiff of any offense involving the killing of security personnel or acts of terrorism, rendering the Defendant’s assertions factually incorrect and malicious.

“The Defendant’s publication constitutes prejudicial commentary on the Plaintiff’s pending judicial proceedings, amounting to contempt of court and a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing and presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

Pre-Action Notice against Omokri

The Plaintiff, through his counsel, P.N Agazie Esq of P. N. Agazie & Co., issued a Pre-Action Notice dated 10/7/2025 against Omokri.

He demanded the following:

a. A retraction of the defamatory statements in two national newspapers and on the Defendant’s Twitter/X account.

b. A public apology admitting to the misrepresentation of facts concerning the Plaintiff

c. A written undertaking to refrain from further defamatory or prejudicial publications.

However, “the Defendant failed, refused, or neglected to comply with the demands in the Pre-Action Notice”, which necessitated the suit.

Kanu fired on: “The statements published by the Defendant are defamatory in that they:

a. Were false and malicious, asserting criminal conduct without evidence.

b. Lowered the Plaintiff’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society.

c. Exposed the Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, and ridicule.

d. Caused significant injury to the Plaintiff’s personal and overall reputation.

“The defamatory statements were published to a wide audience… thereby amplifying the damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation both within Nigeria and internationally.

“The malicious and false publication was read at Enugu by numerous persons including the younger brother of the plaintiff – Prince Emmanuel Kanu.”

Defamation meets prejudice

Kani insisted that the publication by Omokri constitutes prejudicial commentary on his ongoing judicial proceedings.

He also opined that it undermined the integrity of the judicial process and violating the principles of fair hearing and presumption of innocence.

Those principles are guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

According to him, the said publication amounts to contempt of court, interfering with the administration of justice and prejudices the Plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.

Consequent upon the “defamatory publication”, Kanu said he suffered significant reputational harm, damages, emotional distress, and prejudice to his ongoing legal proceedings.

“The Plaintiff’s standing as a public figure and leader of IPOB has been severely damaged smeared and tainted, leading to loss of goodwill, public trust, and support.

“The Plaintiff has also suffered financial loss, including costs incurred in addressing the defamatory publication and mitigating its effects,” he cried.

Find attached a copy of the suit:

Kanu’s junior brother joins the scramble for Omokri’s head

Kanu’s claim was supported with a written statement on oath of his witness and junior brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu.

Prince Kanu swore on oath and stated in part as follows:

“I am related by full blood to the Plaintiff and have known him all my life, spanning from when I was born to the present…

“I know that Plaintiff has been married for several years to Lolo, Mrs Uchechi Kanu and they have several children, and he maintains a residence at Enugu.

“I know that Plaintiff is the Crown Prince of Afaraukwu Ibeku, being the first son of our late father, Eze I. O. Kanu…

“I know that Plaintiff is the Director of Radio Biafra and Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) which is registered as a non-violent self-determination movement in the United Kingdom and has tens of millions of nonviolent members and followers worldwide… who altogether hold the Plaintiff in high esteem.

“I know that Plaintiff has been a mentor to many across Nigeria and beyond, including particularly my humble self and the thousands of people he has positively impacted their lives.”

He continued: “The Defendant’s publication constitutes prejudicial commentary on the Plaintiff’s ongoing judicial proceedings, undermining the integrity of the judicial process and violating the principles of fair hearing and presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“The said publication amounts to contempt of court, as it interferes with the administration of justice and prejudices the Plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.

“As a direct result of the Defendant’s defamatory publication, the Plaintiff has suffered significant reputational harm, damages, emotional distress, and prejudice to his ongoing legal proceedings.

“The Plaintiff’s standing as a public figure and leader of IPOB has been severely damaged smeared and tainted, leading to loss of goodwill, public trust, and support.

“The Plaintiff has also suffered financial loss, including costs incurred in addressing the defamatory publication and mitigating its effects.”

Kanu reiterated his brother’s earlier claims against Omokri, including general damages in the sum of fifty billion Naira for defamation, and aggravated damages in the sum of ten billion Naira, “for the malicious and reckless publication of false statements by the Defendant”.

About Omokri

Reno Omokri has been nominated for an ambassadorial position by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

His appointment, however, has not yet been officially confirmed.

According to multiple reports, Omokri is among several prominent figures, such as Shehu Sani and Femi Fani-Kayode, for appointments.

Presently, they are undergoing security clearance checks by the Department of State Services (DSS) before the appointments are finalized.

There has also been some public opposition to his nomination, though.

The Ohanaeze Youth Council (OYC), for instance, has called for the withdrawal of his name from the list.

(DDM) – A legal expert, Chetam Nwala, has alleged that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may have a hidden agenda against the people of Rivers State following controversial presidential actions that seemingly contradict Supreme Court rulings.

Nwala made the accusations during an interview on Arise TV, where he condemned the President’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State despite the resolution of the region’s political crisis by the apex court.

DDM gathered that Nwala’s remarks have reignited debate over federal overreach, judicial independence, and executive influence on politically tense regions like Rivers.

According to him, President Tinubu’s move to override or nullify a Supreme Court judgment represents not only a legal violation but a calculated move that could destabilize an already fragile peace in the state.

He said, “Tell me, can the President sit down and nullify a Supreme Court decision that actually created tension within Rivers State, to create further tension and to make Rivers people spend more money in Rivers State?”

“I tell you this President has something against Rivers people.”

Nwala maintained that Tinubu’s actions showed deliberate insensitivity to the political complexities of Rivers and cast doubt on his intentions toward the region.

He emphasized that the state of emergency was unnecessary since the legal disputes that caused political tension in Rivers had already been adjudicated and resolved by the Supreme Court.

“Recall we have stated clearly that the President shouldn’t have declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on the grounds that all the political crises that led to the declaration of such an emergency were already settled by the Supreme Court,” he said.

“So, there was no need; he should have waited, but he never waited.”

The lawyer’s comments point to growing public discontent in Rivers State, where many residents and observers have criticized what they see as federal interference in local politics.

Nwala’s accusations further suggest that Tinubu’s administration may be deliberately targeting Rivers due to political alignments or unresolved tensions with regional leaders.

While the Presidency has not responded to these allegations, analysts have warned that continued executive disregard for judicial rulings could fuel distrust and deepen the North-South divide in Nigeria’s fragile federation.

Observers believe the federal government’s insistence on a state of emergency may be politically motivated, especially given Rivers State’s strategic economic and electoral importance.

Nwala’s comments have drawn attention from legal scholars and opposition figures who see the development as part of a wider pattern of executive interference with Nigeria’s judiciary.

He argued that if a President can effectively override Supreme Court decisions, it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines constitutional order.

Rivers State, one of Nigeria’s oil-rich regions, has witnessed a series of political battles and internal party disputes in recent months, including a controversial leadership struggle within the state assembly and tensions between political factions loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

Though some of those battles were recently settled by court verdicts, the federal government’s continued involvement in Rivers politics has left many citizens and stakeholders skeptical of its motives.

Nwala concluded by warning that the nation’s stability depends on respect for court decisions and the rule of law, urging President Tinubu to reconsider his approach and stop “punishing” Rivers State for reasons still unclear to the public.