President of the Dangote Group, Dr Aliko Dangote, has reportedly given a Kaduna-based businessman, Kailani Mohammed, a seven-day deadline to retract what he described as a libelous publication or face a N100 billion lawsuit.
In a formal letter, Dangote demanded an immediate public explanation, retraction, and unreserved apology over allegations that he engaged in unclean business practices, particularly in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, during the 1980s. The businessman was also accused of questioning Dangote’s source of wealth as Africa’s richest man.
The letter was served on the Kaduna businessman by Dangote’s legal representative, Dr Ogwu James Onoja, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria at Onoja Law Firm, Abuja.
Dated December 20, 2025, the letter stated that the comments in question were defamatory, damaging to Dangote’s reputation, and injurious to his extensive business interests. It noted that the allegations were made during an interview granted by Engr. Kailani Mohammed on TrustTV News, aired on Wednesday, December 17, 2025. The interview was reportedly a reaction to a petition Mohammed submitted against Dr Farouk Ahmed to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The correspondence, titled “Demand for public explanation, retraction and unreserved public apology on your libelous publication against Alhaji Aliko Dangote, GCON” and signed by Dr. Ogwu James Onoja SAN, detailed the grievances of the Dangote Group president.
It read: “We are solicitors to Alhaji Aliko Dangote and we write pursuant to his express instructions regarding grievously libelous statements broadcast by TrustTV news and uttered by you during an interview aired on Wednesday, 17th December, 2025 in reaction to the petition submitted by our client to Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).”
The letter further described Dangote as “a widely reputable international businessman,” adding that “He is the richest black man on earth and he has the largest business conglomerate in Africa.”
It continued: “Our client, through dint of hard work, integrity, diligent and perseverance over the years earned for himself the reputation and honour he is reckoned with all over the world.”
According to the letter, the statements made on TrustTV were described as “false, reckless, malicious, scandalous and libelous,” portraying Dangote as corrupt, monopolistic, and vindictive in his business dealings.
The solicitors also quoted the remarks attributed to the Kaduna businessman, including: “Can Dangote tell us the source of his money in the 80s when he was in Port Harcourt. Who is clean? Every time you want to monopolize, you bring allegations against people. Let him come and prove it. In the 80s we are aware of what happened in Port Harcourt and how he got his money. Nobody came out and said all these things”.
The letter stressed that these claims were entirely false and damaging, stating: “These statements are false, scandalous and gravely deliberately impute unlawful or morally questionable conduct to our client and are calculated to expose him to public hatred, ridicule, suspicion and odium.”
It further warned that Dangote’s reputation had been severely harmed in the eyes of the international community, including business partners, associates, and governments where he operates.
The legal team categorically denied the Port Harcourt claims, noting: “Take Note that our client categorically states that at no time in his life has he carried out any business, commercial activity or wealth generating enterprise in Port Harcourt, whether in the 1980s or at any other period whatsoever as you alleged.”
As part of the demands, the businessman was given seven days to publicly explain his allegations on the same TrustTV platform, retract the statements if unable to substantiate them, issue an unreserved public apology, pay N100 billion in damages, and provide a written undertaking to refrain from making further defamatory remarks.
The letter warned that failure to comply would result in immediate legal action, including claims for aggravated damages and possible criminal defamation proceedings.
“This is without prejudice to our client’s right to make a formal report against you to the law enforcement agencies for your investigation and and prosecution for criminal defamation,” the letter concluded.
