The lead counsel to Nestoil Limited, Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN, has demanded the immediate retraction of a publication by online platform PointBlank News alleging that he and other lawyers collected 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 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 denied claims 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 relation to a $1 billion debt.
According to the letter, the allegations conveyed imputations of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and attempts to pervert the course of justice, all of which are offences punishable under Nigerian criminal law.
Olumide-Fusika said Banire, who is widely known for his anti-corruption advocacy and efforts to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and the legal profession, was deeply distressed by being linked to what he described as nefarious activities and serious crimes alleged in the publication.
He faulted the report for relying on an unnamed “reporter” and an unnamed “insider,” noting that no evidence was presented to substantiate the grave allegations.
Banire challenged the platform to publish verifiable proof of the alleged payments if such transactions truly occurred, insisting that even if bribery was not conducted in the presence 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.
He warned that failure to produce such evidence would leave him with no option but to institute a defamation action against the publisher and editors of the platform, regardless of any difficulty in identifying or locating those responsible for the publication.
Banire also clarified the true position of events at the Supreme Court in Neconde Energy Limited v. FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & four others (SC/CV/1130/2025), stating that his only appearance in the matter was on January 12, 2026, and that proceedings on that day were limited strictly to the issue of legal representation.
He stressed that the Supreme Court neither heard nor determined any substantive issues relating to the alleged debt.
A Certified True Copy of the ruling delivered on that date, 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, already before the Court of Appeal, had to be resolved before the Supreme Court could proceed to hear the parties.
Banire said the 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 unnamed sources 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 neither responded to the demand nor published a retraction.
