By Henry Ojelu, ABUJA

The Federal Capital Territory High Court has struck out a ₦100.5 billion defamation suit filed by the Nasarawa State Government and Governor Abdullahi Sule against Prof. Zacharys Gundu, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mkar.

The court, presided over by Justice Hamza Muazu, struck out the suit after a preliminary objection challenging the case’s competence.

The suit stemmed from comments allegedly made by Prof. Gundu during a television programme in which he accused the governor of harbouring bandits and mismanaging security in parts of Nasarawa State. The state government had described the remarks as defamatory and sought damages.

However, counsel to the defendant, Aondo Jerry (SAN), argued in the preliminary objection that a government cannot institute a defamation action using public funds, noting that such claims are personal and must be brought by individuals.

Reacting after the ruling, Jerry said the court’s decision was clear and consistent with established legal principles.

“The government cannot use taxpayers’ money to bring a defamation suit. Such action can only be brought in a personal capacity; consequently, the case has been struck out,” he said.

The ruling followed earlier arguments by Sebastine Hon (SAN), who emphasised that public funds cannot be used to pursue personal legal grievances.

Meanwhile, Prof. Tor Iorapuu, former Vice-Chancellor of Fr. Adasu University, Makurdi, welcomed the decision, describing it as a reminder for leaders to reflect on their responsibilities.

According to him, the ruling encourages leaders to pursue unity and act in the interest of the people.
Also reacting, Comrade Tar Ukoh, a cultural activist, urged governors not to use public resources to harass citizens and warned against continued attacks on communities in Benue and Nasarawa states.

The Nasarawa State Government had sought ₦100.5 billion in damages, claiming that Prof. Gundu’s remarks defamed the governor’s character.

Although the government’s legal team declined to comment after the ruling, it indicated that it might amend the claims and reinstitute the case.