Kosofe Council Chairman Faces Multiple Legal Battles as Critics Question Governance and Financial Accountability
LAGOS, NIGERIA – March 18, 2026
A troubling pattern of litigation has emerged involving Barrister Moyosore Ogunlewe, Executive Chairman of Kosofe Local Government Area, raising serious questions about the use of the legal system to silence political opponents and critics. While the Chairman pursues multiple defamation suits against those who have questioned his financial management, he himself faces a High Court interim injunction in a case alleging he orchestrated a false sexual harassment petition against a duly elected councillor who dared to expose alleged abuse of office.
The convergence of these cases – spanning from December 2025 to the present – reveals what legal observers and political analysts describe as a coordinated strategy to intimidate, harass, and legally exhaust those who challenge the Chairman’s governance and financial practices at Kosofe Local Government.
*The Retaliation Begins: The Samuel Case*
The conflict began on December 2, 2025, when three elected councillors – Abayomi Elugbidin (Ward B), David Olugbenga Samuel (Ward D), and Sulaimon Baruwa (Ward F) – submitted a comprehensive petition to the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly. The petition alleged systematic abuse of office by Chairman Ogunlewe, including the appointment of “shadow councillors” to usurp the roles of duly elected officials, unlawful withholding of statutory allowances, and the misappropriation of a ₦100 million empowerment fund.
Within weeks, on December 19, 2025, a petition surfaced accusing Hon. Samuel of sexual harassment. The allegation came from Ms. Idowu Charity, whom Hon. Samuel claims he had met only once in a public setting. In his legal filings, Hon. Samuel contends that this false accusation was a direct act of retaliation orchestrated by the Chairman and the Legislative Council leadership to destroy his political career and silence his criticism.
Court Intervenes: Interim Injunction Granted
On March 10, 2026, Hon. Justice Olufunke Sule-Amzat of the High Court of Lagos State granted a sweeping interim injunction in favor of Hon. Samuel (Suit No: LD/21415MFHR/2026). The court found that there was “real urgency” and that it was in the “interest of justice” to protect the councillor’s fundamental rights. The order explicitly restrains the Executive Chairman, the Leader of the House (Hon. Oyesile Olufemi), and the Kosofe Legislative Council from suspending, expelling, deducting salary or benefits, or taking any disciplinary action against Hon. Samuel. Additionally, the court restrained the Nigeria Police Force from arresting or detaining the councillor in connection with the harassment petition.
At the hearing on March 17, 2026, the court noted that the 2nd to 4th Respondents (the Chairman and Legislative Council leadership) had been duly served with the court order and hearing notices. The case has been adjourned to June 2, 2026, for full proceedings.
*The Counter-Attack: Multiple Defamation Suits*
While facing the interim injunction in the Samuel case, Chairman Ogunlewe has simultaneously filed multiple defamation suits against those who have publicly questioned his financial management and governance. These suits reveal a parallel strategy – use the courts to suppress criticism and intimidate political opponents.
*Case 2: Ogunlewe v. Ashiroff Oyebanjo & Others*
In Suit No: ID/12984GCW/2025, filed in the Ikeja Judicial Division, Chairman Ogunlewe seeks ₦500 million in damages against Ashiroff Oyebanjo (a Supervisory Councillor on Revenue at Kosofe LG), his brother Ibrahim Oyebanjo, and Ganiyu Olamiji Oyebanjo (Special Adviser on Boundary Matters). The defendants are accused of publishing defamatory statements on WhatsApp, internet platforms, and in petitions to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC).
The defendants’ alleged publications reference:
• Alleged diversion of ₦800 million for property acquisition
• Claims of bribing fellow political aspirants
• Accusations of misappropriation of council funds for personal vehicles
• Allegations of manipulation of Executive Committee minutes
• Unexplained financial expenditures totaling millions of naira
In their defence, the defendants argue that their communications to anti-corruption agencies constitute privileged statements made in the exercise of public duty. They cite Section 27(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, which protects disclosure of mismanagement and abuse of authority by public officials. The defendants further argue that if the allegations were false, the Chairman could not have won the APC Local Government Primaries – suggesting public knowledge of his conduct.
*Case 3: Ogunlewe v. Saliu Marufdeen Adekunle*
In a separate suit (filed in February 2026, Ikeja Judicial Division), Chairman Ogunlewe seeks ₦50 million in damages against Saliu Marufdeen Adekunle (also known as “Africa”) for allegedly making defamatory publications on platforms including “Kosofe News Update,” “Project OKLA 2026,” and “KSF – Igbega Ipinle Eko.” The defendant is also accused of posting on WhatsApp political forums. The suit seeks a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and associates from making further publications.
*The Broader Picture: A Pattern of Silencing Dissent*
Taken together, these cases paint a concerning picture of how local government power can be weaponized against critics and elected officials. The pattern is unmistakable:
*First, the Challenge*: Elected councillors and political stakeholders raise legitimate concerns about financial mismanagement and abuse of office.
*Second, the Retaliation*: The Chairman responds with false allegations (the sexual harassment petition against Hon. Samuel) and massive defamation suits (₦50-500 million) against those who question his governance.
*Third, the Chilling Effect*: The cumulative effect of these actions is to intimidate, exhaust, and silence future critics. Few individuals have the financial resources or political backing to withstand multiple lawsuits and false criminal allegations.
Questions for the Public and Media
Several critical questions emerge from this litigation pattern:
1. Is the legal system being abused? Can defamation law be used to suppress legitimate criticism of public officials’ financial management?
2. What about freedom of expression? Are elected officials and political stakeholders being denied their right to question how public funds are being managed?
3. Where is the accountability? If the allegations of misappropriation are false, why do the defendants cite specific financial figures and alleged improprieties in their defence?
4. What is the cost to democracy? When elected officials fear retaliation through litigation and false criminal allegations, can they effectively represent their constituents?
5. Is there a pattern? The simultaneous pursuit of multiple lawsuits against different critics, combined with the alleged orchestration of a false harassment petition, suggests a coordinated strategy rather than isolated incidents.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal observers note that while defamation law exists to protect reputation, it can be misused as a tool of political suppression. The principle of “SLAPP suits” (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) has long been recognized as a threat to democratic discourse. When public officials sue critics for defamation, particularly with extraordinarily high damages claims, the effect is often to silence rather than to vindicate reputation.
The interim injunction granted by Justice Sule-Amzat in the Samuel case suggests that at least one court has found merit in the argument that the Chairman’s actions constitute an abuse of power and a violation of fundamental rights.
*Next Steps*
The Samuel case will return to court on June 2, 2026, for full hearing. The defamation suits filed by the Chairman remain pending. Civil society organizations and media watchdogs will be closely monitoring these cases as they unfold, given their implications for democratic governance, freedom of expression, and the accountability of local government officials.
*Conclusion*
The cases involving Barrister Moyosore Ogunlewe and Kosofe Local Government raise fundamental questions about the rule of law, the protection of democratic discourse, and the accountability of public officials. Whether the courts will ultimately find merit in the Chairman’s defamation suits, or whether they will be dismissed as abusive litigation, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the pattern of simultaneous litigation against multiple critics, combined with allegations of orchestrating false criminal charges, demands scrutiny and public attention.
The High Court’s interim injunction in the Samuel case suggests that at least one judicial officer has recognized the danger posed by such tactics. As these cases proceed through the courts, they will serve as a test case for whether Nigeria’s legal system can distinguish between legitimate protection of reputation and the abuse of law to suppress political dissent.
