RE: YOUR PUBLIC STATEMENT DATED 15TH APRIL, 2026 — FURTHER RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF HON. BILLY FAMOUS ADESUWA OSAWARU
19th May, 2026
Osifo, Osa Washington,
LL.B,B.L, , LL.M , MPA, Ph.D
Aspirant, House of Representatives
Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode Federal Constituency
Dear Dr. Osifo,
RE: YOUR PUBLIC STATEMENT DATED 15TH APRIL, 2026 — FURTHER RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF HON. BILLY FAMOUS ADESUWA OSAWARU
We continue to act as Solicitors to Hon. Billy Famous Adesuwa Osawaru, Chairman, Committee on Cooperation and Integration in Africa and Member representing Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, who remains Our Client.
We have read with considerable attention your Public Statement dated 15th April, 2026, in which you sought to defend the comments made by Hon. Patrick Aisowieren at your political engagement in Igbanke Ward on 6th April, 2026. We acknowledge the scholarly manner in which the statement is couched, and we compliment you on your academic industry. However, admirable legal writing cannot clothe factually unsupported allegations with the garment of legitimacy.
We write to put the record straight on several points which your statement despite its considerable length conspicuously failed to address, and to correct certain mischaracterisations of law and fact contained therein.
1. THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT CURED BY A LEGAL LECTURE
Your statement opens with an admirable recitation of the law of defamation in Nigeria. We have no quarrel with the black-letter law as stated. However, we observe that a detailed rehearsal of legal principles does nothing to cure the mischief complained of. The demand letter issued by this Chambers on 8th April, 2026 was specific and unambiguous. Three distinct allegations were made by Hon. Aisowieren:
(a) That our client was rusticated from the University of Benin;
(b) That our client is a native doctor; and
(c) That our client lacks academic qualifications.
Your statement in seven paragraphs of legal argumentation does not once assert that any of these three allegations is true. You invoke the defence of justification as an abstract legal principle but provided not a single piece of evidence in support of it. You offer no proof that our client was rusticated; no evidence that he practices native medicine; and no basis for the assertion that he lacks academic qualifications. A defence of justification that is unsupported by facts is no defence at all. See: Nsirim v. Nsirim (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.138) 285.
The Court of Appeal has restated this position with admirable clarity. In Registered Trustees of the International Islamic Relief Organisation & Ors v. Musa & Ors (2019) LPELR-47647(CA), the Court held that "a plea of justification means that the libel must be true not only in its allegation of fact but also in any comment made thereon". Although a defendant is not obliged to prove the truth of every word, he is nonetheless obliged to prove that the main or gist of the libel is true. Per JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA (Pp. 49–50, Paras D–A).
Citing further: Amuzie v. Asonye (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 19; Din v. African Newspapers (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.139) 392; Dumbo v. Idugboe (1983) 1 SCNLR 29; A.C.B Ltd v. Apugo (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt.707) 483. Your statement does not even attempt to prove the gist of any single one of the three allegations made in Igbanke. On that basis alone, the purported defence of justification fails entirely.
The Supreme Court's observation in Nwadike & Ors v. Ibekwe & Ors (1987) LPELR-2087(SC) is also apposite to the character of your public statement. The apex court, per CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, JSC (Pp. 37–38, Paras D–A), stated thus:
"A defence that fails to defend is as good as no defence. A defence that does not answer the points of substance is as good as no defence. A defendant usually sets out in his defence to answer the points of substance, to contradict and thus demolish the live issues on which the case will stand. If his defence fails to achieve that result, it will be as good as no defence."
With the greatest of respect, your Public Statement of 15th April, 2026 is precisely such a document. It is lengthy, learned in appearance, and entirely silent on the substance of what was alleged. It does not answer whether our client was rusticated. It does not address the native doctor allegation. It does not demolish the live issues. By the standard set by the Supreme Court, it is, in law, no defence at all.
2. ON THE INEC FORM EC9 AND THE ALLEGED CREDENTIAL DISCREPANCY
The centrepiece of your defence and we observe it is a borrowed one, being essentially the same point Hon. Aisowieren made in Igbanke is the alleged inconsistency between our client's campaign declarations and his INEC Form EC9. This argument, though superficially attractive, is fundamentally misconceived for the following reasons:
First, the constitution prescribes the minimum qualification threshold for contestation. Section 65(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides that a School Certificate or its equivalent shall be the minimum educational qualification to contest any elections in Nigeria. The submission of a WAEC/SSCE certificate to INEC does not, whether as a matter of law, fact, morality or logic, constitute a representation that it is the candidate's only academic qualification. INEC Form EC9 is not comprehensive curriculum vitae. It is a constitutional compliance document!. The question is does our client's INEC Form EC9 comply with the constitutional requirement for contesting elections into the house of Representatives? The answer is a resounding YES!
Second, your statement and Hon. Aisowieren's original remarks proceed on the implicit assumption that a candidate who declares a minimum qualification to INEC is lying when he publicly discusses higher qualifications. This assumption has no legal or logical basis. A man who holds a degree, postgraduate diplomas, and a school certificate is fully entitled to submit only the school certificate to INEC for the purpose of satisfying the constitutional threshold, while separately and truthfully representing his fuller academic record to the public. There is no contradiction, no misrepresentation, and certainly no falsehood.
Third, we draw your attention to the fact that our client's academic records including his degree in Microbiology from the University of Benin and his postgraduate qualifications in Business Administration from Schiller International University and Argosy University, USA are verifiable and have been disclosed to your attention in our letter. You have offered no evidence whatsoever to impugn those qualifications. Mere scepticism, however eloquently expressed, is not evidence.
3. YOUR COMMENTS ON ARGOSY UNIVERSITY ARE IRRESPONSIBLE AND POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE
Your statement contains the following observation, which we reproduce for ease of reference:
"We also note with interest that your letter refers to postgraduate degrees in Business Administration (International Business) from Schiller International and Argosy Universities, USA. We observe that Argosy University was closed by the United States Department of Education in 2019 following accreditation conc the classic tradition of innuendo that our client's postgraduateerns and financial collapse..."
We treat this paragraph with the seriousness it demands. You have, in a document you have clearly prepared for public circulation, insinuated without any direct allegation, in qualification may be invalid or unrecognised. This is precisely the kind of defamation by innuendo that Nigerian courts have consistently condemned. See: Ofoegbu v. Abubakar (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 345) 552.
For the avoidance of doubt: our client obtained his postgraduate qualification prior to any closure proceedings against Argosy University. The closure of an institution after a degree has been validly conferred does not retroactively invalidate a degree already earned. Furthermore, you raised this point as a "matter of public record and ongoing scrutiny" while simultaneously disclaiming it as an allegation — a rhetorical device that deceives no court. You cannot plant a seed of doubt and then disclaim the harvest. We put you on notice that this passage, if published, will be treated as part of any defamation proceedings our client may elect to pursue.
4. ON POLITICAL SPEECH: THE LIMITS OF THE DEFENCE
You correctly stated that public officials must tolerate robust scrutiny of their public conduct. We accept that proposition. However, the defence of fair comment on matters of public interest — like justification — has boundaries. It does not extend to:
i. Statements of fact that are false: the allegation of rustication is a statement of fact, not comment;
ii. Statements made with malice: a political rally in a contested constituency days before a critical engagement is not a neutral forum for dispassionate academic analysis; and
iii. Statements that go beyond the subject matter of legitimate political comment: allegations of being a native doctor bear no relationship to any matter of electoral policy or constitutional qualification.
We also observe the irony of a lawyer and aspiring lawmaker invoking the freedom of political speech to defend allegations he himself does not assert are true. If Hon. Aisowieren's allegations were true, you would have said so plainly and produce the evidence. You have not done so.
5. ON YOUR OWN CREDENTIAL REPRESENTATIONS: THE "Ph.D IN VIEW" NOTICE
We are compelled to draw your attention to a matter that goes to the very heart of the credibility of your public statement. Throughout your correspondence and public representations including the letterhead and signature block of the statement under review you describe yourself as holding a "Ph.D (Environmental Law — in view)." We raise this not in a spirit of personal attack, but because it is directly germane to a dispute in which you have made academic credentials the central battleground.
The phrase "Ph.D in view" has no recognised standing in the academic world. A doctorate is either conferred or it is not. Universities, regulatory bodies, and the academic community universally regard the description of an unearned doctorate as a qualification whether appended to a name, listed on a letterhead, or cited in a public statement as a serious misrepresentation. The National Universities Commission (NUC) and the standards of the Nigerian Bar Association equally frown upon the inflation of academic titles, particularly by legal practitioners who are officers of the court and held to the highest standards of candour.
The irony is not lost on us that you have, in this very dispute, accused our client of misrepresenting his academic qualifications to the public while simultaneously appending to your own name and public correspondence a doctoral title that has not yet been earned and has not been conferred by any institution. A legal practitioner of your standing ought to know better. We respectfully but firmly observe that you have continued to use "Ph.D (Environmental Law — in view)" as a qualification in all your recent public communications, correspondence, and political representations. Why this is necessary remains to be understood in view of the fact that you hold another Doctor of Philosophy. This would would appear to be a case of credential misrepresentation.
Besides, it is against academic propriety to continue to hold out an unearned academic qualification simply because one intends to acquire it in the future. It is dishonesty to say the least!
6. ON YOUR OFFER OF A MEETING
You stated in your response that you are "open to a meeting at which the documentary evidence of his qualifications... can be examined." We note this offer but observe that it inverts the proper burden. It is not our client's obligation to prove his qualifications to you in a private meeting in order to avoid being publicly defamed. The burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement rests on the defendant. See: Awolowo v. Kingsway Stores Ltd (1968) NMLR 382.
Our client is not obliged to the audition of his academic credentials before every political opponent who chooses to question them. His qualifications are a matter of record with the institutions that conferred them. If you have credible evidence that any of those qualifications is fraudulent, the appropriate step is to report the matter to the relevant regulatory authorities — not to make public allegations at a political rally.
7. OUR CLIENT'S FINAL POSITION
We confirm that our client's position remains unchanged. He demands:
(i) A full and unequivocal public retraction of the allegations that he was rusticated from the University of Benin, that he is a native doctor, and that he lacks academic qualifications;
(ii) A public apology published in at least one national newspaper and on the same platforms where the statements were disseminated or amplified; and
(iii) A withdrawal of the passage in your public statement casting aspersions on the validity of our client's Argosy University qualification.
The Seven-day period stated in our original letter has now elapsed. We are presently taking instructions on the next steps, including the commencement of proceedings before the appropriate court. This letter is written without prejudice to those steps.
We trust, learned colleague, that the matter can still be resolved without recourse to litigation but that is a choice that now rests entirely with you and your principal.
Yours faithfully,
For: THE LEGAL ANGLE
(SGD)
OSAROBO J. ONAGHISE, LL.B(Hons) B.L.
Associate Counsel
