Headline

Igboho, Gani Adams On Warpath Over Assassination Allegation

Published

1 year ago

March 26, 2024

Editor

Yoruba Nation agitator, Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho; and the Chief of Staff to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State, Mr Tayo Ayinde, have both threatened to drag the Aare Ona Kakanfo, Iba Gani Adams, to court for allegedly accusing them of plotting an assassination.

Igboho and Ayinde, in separate pre-action letters by their lawyers, demanded that Adams should retract the said assassination claim against them or they would drag him to court.

But when contacted by The PUNCH, Adams declined comments on the matter, saying: “No comment on that. No comment.”

In a March 20, 2024 pre-action letter, Ayinde’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), demanded that Adams should retract the allegation “without any need on my client’s part to press you further on the subject.”

Olumide-Fusika said the pre-action letter was informed by the content of a press release issued by Igboho, titled: “I did not take part in killing Chief Bola Ige…”

According to Olumide-Fusika, Igboho said the press release was in reaction to some allegations against him in a viral voice note made by Adams.

Olumide-Fusika said, “In the press release, Chief Sunday Adeyemo claimed to be reacting to ‘issues raised by the voice notes going around on social media released by Aare Gani Adams,’ which ‘attacked his character’.”

The lawyer said his client’s name was mentioned in Igboho’s press release, a situation that had made many people from within and outside Nigeria to inundate him with phone calls, prompting him to go and listen to the said voice note.

According to Olumide-Fusika, the 10th paragraph of Igboho’s press release suggested that Adams claimed that Ayinde hired Igboho to assassinate him (Adams).

According to Olumide-Fusika, Adams, in a viral voice note, was allegedly heard saying in Yoruba language: “I would send you a letter signed and sent by these people to Tinubu, imploring him to stop wasting time and give them the go-ahead to eliminate me (Adams).

“The letter was signed by them and sent to Tinubu’s Bourdillon address, and it was received there. Those are the characters in the circle of this thoughtless fellow; he covets their association.

“My enemy’s friend is my enemy. He (Igboho) says we should combine forces to liberate our people, but he is in bed with enemies of our cause.

“So, be careful associating with Igboho. Just last night, he was with Tayo Ayinde, the Lagos State Governor’s Chief of Staff. He was heavily paid.

“You know that I have an extensive intelligence network as Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland. Until about 2:45am, he was with Tayo Ayinde, the Lagos State Governor’s Chief of Staff, who Tinubu also uses in Lagos to coordinate the execution of his evil machinations.

“He has been doing work of that nature for Tinubu since his days in the SSS.

“He resigned from the SSS, Ibadan to concentrate fully on such work for Tinubu, who compensated him with the office of Chief of Staff to the Lagos State Governor. It was at his hotel somewhere in Ikeja, Lagos, that Igboho visited him to collect money for logistics to confront me. Igboho left lbadan at about midnight to attend this meeting which ended at about 2:45am.

“Tayo Ayinde gave N45m in cash to Igboho for the operation, thus shortchanging Igboho to the tune of N5m out of the N50m purse provided by Tinubu. The discovery of this has brewed disenchantment in their midst.”

In the pre-action letter written on Ayinde’s behalf, Olumide-Fusika described the alleged claims by Adams as injurious to the person of his client, asking the Aare Ona Kakanfo to retract the same.

The lawyer said, “You will agree with me that the imputations in the above are as serious and damaging, as those who have listened to the ‘voice notes’ have represented it to my client by their telephone calls and visits. It includes that my client is complicit in a conspiracy to murder you (Adams), and is in fact the coordinator of the phantom operation.

“Given your own experience in life, I am sure you will appreciate how painful it is to be unjustly accused, as you have done in this instance against my client.”

The lawyer added, “My instructions are, therefore, to respectfully demand that you retract the false and wicked allegation, either through another voice note to go round the same social media, or by a press release referencing and recanting the allegation.

“I do believe that this gentlemanly request will be voluntarily heeded by you without any on my client’s part to press you further on the subject.”

On his part, Igboho in a letter by his lawyer, J.A. Sanusi, dated March 18, 2024, addressed to Adams, stated that he had been inundated with several calls “over the unfortunate lies peddled by you (Adams) against him (our client).”

The lawyer, on behalf of Igboho, said the people of Nigeria world over wished to confirm the veracity of the said “malicious interview or phone calls you (Adams) had with a person unknown that has become subject of public embarrassment and caused serious odium against the person of our client.”

The letter, which asked Adams to retract the allegations, also demanded the sum of N500m in compensation.

It partly read, “You (Adams) are aware that there is an audio clip which is presently going viral on all new media platforms where you have alleged the following against our client (Sunday Igboho) viz:

“That our client is an assassin who used to work for His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President, Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“That our client is rumoured to be one of the persons that assassinated the late Chief Bola Ige, SAN, together with one Fryo.

“That our client was involved in a series of murder cases but escaped prosecution as a result of his political connection.

“That our client received the sum of Forty-Five Million Naira (N45,000,000.00) sometime in 2022 to carry out some dirty works for His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR; and

“That our client swindled Nigerians in diaspora for a fake self-determination agenda of the Yoruba race.”

Sanusi said Igboho wished to inform Adams “that the malicious lies against our client only exist in the figment of your imagination as our client is a law-abiding citizen, whose only offence at the time was to protect the interest of the Yoruba race, a responsibility which you were ordinarily saddled to discharge but failed to so do.”

He stressed that the false outburst had not only caused embarrassment but also economic losses to Igboho.

He stated further, “It is in the light of the above that we call on you to forthwith retract all the negative comments (highly defamatory too) made against the person of our client which has just been released to the social media, including YouTube platform.”

The lawyer said Igboho would be seeking redress in the court should Adams fail to meet his demands.

PUNCH

Related Topics:#Sunday Igboho Ganni Adams Yoruba nation

Up Next

US Bridge Collapses After Ship Collision

Don't Miss

Faye: 15 Things To Know About 44-year-old Senegal’s President

Comments

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

3 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.