In a predicted beginning to the end of a well scripted drama of falsehood, the judiciary has reaffirmed its commitment to due process and the protection of individual rights following its recent interim orders restraining certain individuals from making further public or social media references to Dr. Chris Okafor, his church, or ministry.
The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja handed down the ruling on Thursday.
In the light of the developing legal processes, members of the public, media professionals, and social media users have been urged to exercise restraint, avoid speculation, and allow the court to determine the facts without undue external influence.
At the resumed attention on the matter, the court maintained its earlier position that all parties must refrain from publishing, circulating, or alluding to any materials-whether written, visual, or digital-relating to Dr. Okafor or Grace Nation International (Liberation City) pending the determination of the substantive suit.
There’s an assumed understanding among legal observers that the court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s increasing concern over the misuse of social media platforms to disseminate unverified claims, total falsehood, private materials, or content capable of causing reputational harm before matters are fully tested in law.
READ ALSO:Court Restrains VDM, Doris Ogala, Others From Social Media Mentions Of Chris Okafor
Dr. Okafor’s team reiterated his confidence in the judicial process and his decision to seek lawful redress rather than engage in public confrontation over a matter that appear to have been well designed to drag, extort and enrich contents built on twisted facts and outright falsehood.
“Dr. Okafor has consistently maintained that the court is the proper forum for resolving disputes of this nature. He welcomes the court’s guidance and urges all parties to respect the rule of law,” a source close to the matter stated.
The court had earlier barred the defendants, their agents, or associates from publishing or releasing any alleged private communications, images, videos, or materials that could be construed as defamatory, extortive, or prejudicial to the ongoing proceedings.
Analysts say the case highlights a broader national conversation around digital responsibility, ethical commentary, and the limits of free expression where reputational rights are concerned.
The matter has been adjourned to February 2, 2026, when the court is expected to hear further arguments in the substantive suit.
Until then, all parties remain bound by the existing court orders.
