‘Medicine After Death’,  Onoh reacts to Omokri’s statement on Sowore’s case

Denge.Josef Onoh, former Southeast Spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of Enugu State House of Assembly, has dismissed Reno Omokri’s January 28, 2026, statement as “medicine after death”—a belated retraction that cannot undo the harm caused. Reacting to the January 27, 2026, Federal High Court session in […]

Denge.Josef Onoh, former Southeast Spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of Enugu State House of Assembly, has dismissed Reno Omokri’s January 28, 2026, statement as “medicine after death”—a belated retraction that cannot undo the harm caused.

Reacting to the January 27, 2026, Federal High Court session in Abuja, where Omoyele Sowore’s defence played a 2023 video of Omokri calling Tinubu a “drug lord” (admitted as evidence per Premium Times, Vanguard, and Sahara Reporters), Onoh stated that
Omokri now admits his 2023 “uncomplimentary remarks” were based on misinformation from sources including Sahara Reporters, but the damage—polarising narratives and reputational harm during the election had already occurred.

Onoh said that delayed retractions do not erase liability for defamation under Nigerian law (citing Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order v. Awoniyi, 1994) Onoh said Omokri’s Reframing his statements as “mistaken beliefs” without full accountability may amount to malicious publication (Section 375, Criminal Code Act).

Onoh affirmed Sowore’s right to tender the video in his defence against cyberstalking charges (Cybercrimes Act 2015, Section 24), arguing it demonstrates selective prosecution and places the claims within broader public discourse. Such evidence is admissible under the Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 1–3, 83) and can mitigate intent (Ojo v. FRN, 2006).

Dissecting Omokri’s statement, Onoh concluded it is not a genuine apology but pragmatic acceptance of judicial reality.

Onoh said that Omokri blaming media sources is deflection, not unqualified regret which can be evidenced in (Airtel Networks Ltd v. Thisday Newspapers Ltd, 2016).

Also Omokri’s Post-inauguration affirmation (May 29, 2023) and acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment (SC/CV/953/2023) reflect legal compliance, not remorse.

Regarding Later interviews (2023–2025) and an alleged private apology (October 1, 2024) Onoh said were too late and selective to mitigate damage with reference to (Ojukwu v. Nwosu, 2003).

Onoh maintained that Omokri’s “withdrawals” amount to surrender to unavoidable facts—not ethical accountability for spreading unverified claims during a critical election. Sowore’s strategy, he said, rightly exposes this hypocrisy.