LAGOS, Nigeria – Gospel singer Mercy Chinwo and her husband, Blessed Uzochikwa, have initiated legal action against five social media users for allegations of criminal defamation.
This legal battle traces its origins to a petition by fellow gospel artist Nathaniel Bassey to the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, regarding claims that he was the father of Mercy’s six-month-old son.
The lawsuit targets individuals identified as Okoronkwo Ejike, Kingsley Ibeh, DJ Spoiltkid, Terrence Ekot, and Samuel Agozie, who spread rumours about the child’s paternity following the couple’s public introduction of their son on March 29.
According to Channels TV, the legal team leading the charge is from the Abuja-based law firm Law Corridor, helmed by Pelumi Olajengbesi.
Following the accusations, the Chief Magistrate Court in Wuse Zone 2 issued summons on April 3 for the defendants, instructing them to appear in court on April 23 to face charges.
The legal complaint accuses the individuals of engaging in cyber intimidation, injurious falsehood, and cyberstalking, allegedly infringing on Sections 391 of the Penal Code and Section 24 (1)(B) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
In response to the backlash, two of the accused, Okoronkwo Ejike and DJ SpoiltKid, issued public apologies.
Ejike expressed regret for any hurt his post may have caused, stating, “I at this moment tender an unreserved apology to Mercy Chinwo, Nathaniel Bassey and Pastor Blessed for my take on the striking resemblance of Pastor Blessed’s baby and to everyone who got hurt over my post, I’m deeply very sorry.”
DJ SpoiltKid also addressed the controversy, clarifying his intentions were solely to share information and not to endorse the allegations.
He stated, “However, I now understand that the retweet was misunderstood… I did not intend to support the post in any way that could cause harm. I am deeply concerned about it, and as a human, I sincerely apologise for making such a mistake.”
The remaining three defendants have yet to publicly respond or react to the legal actions taken against them.
This case highlights the growing concern over the impact of social media on personal reputations and the boundaries of free speech versus defamation.
