When deadlines expire, disputes harden
A conflict that began in comment sections and private messaging groups has crossed a decisive line. On January 28, 2026, legal practitioners Ganki Hassan & Co, acting for Sylvanus Ofekun, a Nigerian sports journalist based in Abuja, issued a formal pre-action notice demanding retraction and apology over alleged defamatory publications.
The notice was addressed to Akinkunle Adekunle Bolarinwa and set a seven-day compliance window. That window has now closed.
From online claims to formal legal exposure
According to the notice, statements published on Facebook in November 2025 and later circulated across WhatsApp groups in January 2026 accused the claimant of criminal conduct, fraud, blackmail, and professional dishonesty.
The solicitors described the publications as false, malicious, and recklessly made, arguing that they were calculated to damage reputation, professional standing, and personal integrity rather than advance any legitimate public discussion.
Why expiry changes everything
Under Nigerian law, pre-action notices are not rhetorical devices. They are procedural signals. Once a compliance deadline lapses without remedy, the dispute moves from corrective opportunity to enforcement territory.
The notice references Sections 373–375 of the Criminal Code on defamation, alongside provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, which criminalise cyberstalking, harassment, and injurious falsehood. At this stage, the absence of retraction or apology becomes a factor in assessing intent, persistence, and damages.
The structure that forces escalation
Legal escalation is driven by structure, not emotion: identifiable platforms, dated publications, cited statutes, copied institutions, and elapsed timelines. Once these elements align, discretion narrows.
With the deadline passed, the dispute now sits at the threshold where private resolution gives way to institutional processes and formal remedies.
What the consequence phase allows
The expired notice opens several pathways. These include civil claims for damages, criminal complaints under cybercrime statutes, and petitions to regulatory or oversight bodies connected to Nigerian sports administration, including the Nigeria Football Federation and the National Sports Commission.
No court has ruled on the allegations, and no findings have been made. The claims remain disputed. The absence of compliance does not establish guilt, but it does alter the legal posture from dialogue to enforcement.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
