A deep dive into the orchestrated smear campaign against the Federal High Court and Nestoil Limited
In recent days, sections of the media have been awash with sensational headlines alleging that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, received a $5 million bribe from promoters of Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited to influence the reassignment of a receivership case in Lagos.
The claims, at first glance, appear dramatic enough to stir public outrage; yet upon scrutiny, they collapse under the weight of their own contradictions, lack of evidence, and utter disregard for judicial procedure.
At the heart of the allegations lies Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025, a receivership dispute between FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and Nestoil Limited & Others. The earlier report accused Justice Tsoho of “directing” Nestoil to petition Justice Deinde Dipeolu and collecting millions of dollars to facilitate the transfer of the case to another judge.
However, there exists no credible evidence, be it documentary, financial, or testimonial, to support this narrative. Neither the National Judicial Council (NJC), which constitutionally supervises judges, nor the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which investigates financial impropriety, has confirmed the existence of any such investigation, petition, or financial transaction.
The alleged “documents and internal sources” cited in the report remain conveniently anonymous and unverifiable. In a judicial system governed by due process, hearsay and conjecture cannot substitute for proof.
Understanding the facts: Administrative transfers are routine
Contrary to the insinuation that the Chief Judge “interfered” in a pending case, the Federal High Court’s (Civil Procedure) Rules and internal practice directions clearly empower the Chief Judge to reassign cases where administrative or jurisdictional issues arise, for instance, when a litigant alleges bias, or when a matter involves conflicting judicial schedules.
In the instance in question, expert legal opinion aver that the company merely exercised its lawful right to petition the Chief Judge, citing concerns about repeated adverse rulings by the same judge in multiple related matters. Such petitions are routine in the Nigerian judiciary, and their existence does not imply wrongdoing.
Indeed, hundreds of petitions are received by the office of the Chief Judge annually, and only a fraction result in administrative reassignments after internal review.
To therefore claim that a routine petition is a bribe-fuelled plot is to misunderstand both procedure and principle.
No evidence of financial impropriety
The allegation that Justice Tsoho “received $5 million” is not only reckless but also patently false. Judicial finances in Nigeria are closely monitored, and the Chief Judge, as head of the Federal High Court, is bound by strict audit and accountability procedures under the supervision of both the National Judicial Council and the Budget Office of the Federation.
A transfer of such magnitude would leave a digital and traceable financial footprint. Yet, no bank report, no whistleblower document, and no EFCC inquiry substantiates the claim. The report’s reliance on “sources within the judiciary” without corroborating evidence exposes it as a deliberate campaign of defamation.
The claim that Nestoil or its Group Chairman, Dr. Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, masterminded a bribery plot to “escape receivership” is equally hollow. The company’s petition to the Chief Judge, which it is entitled to submit under Order 49 of the Federal High Court Rules, simply questioned the propriety of certain injunctions issued by Justice Dipeolu.
Nestoil’s grievance centered on legitimate points of law: whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over contractual disputes of this nature, and whether receivership orders were issued prematurely, given that senior loan obligations had not been settled. These are not the actions of a company seeking to subvert justice but of a corporate citizen exercising its constitutional right to fair hearing and impartial adjudication.
Moreover, the sealing of the premises the property at 41/42 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, which was sealed under the ex parte order, raises genuine questions of judicial overreach, not corruption.
The anatomy of a smear campaign
A close reading of the original report reveals its design: anonymous quotes, speculative phrasing, and the complete absence of verifiable attribution. Every key allegation, from the supposed “meeting in Abuja” to the alleged “$5 million payment,” is framed through untraceable sources.
This pattern mirrors the anatomy of a planted story, strategically released to damage reputations, intimidate the judiciary, and pressure corporate actors embroiled in legitimate legal battles.
Legal experts note that attempts to malign judicial officers through unverified reports have become a disturbing trend, often weaponized by aggrieved commercial interests who lose in court. Such tactics not only undermine public trust in the judiciary but also constitute contempt of court.
Justice John Tsoho’s career spans over three decades of unblemished judicial service. As Chief Judge, his administrative decisions are subject to oversight by the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, and internal audit units of the judiciary. It is therefore institutionally impossible for him to “reassign” a case on personal whim, much less for pecuniary gain.
The NJC’s disciplinary guidelines stipulate that any allegation of misconduct against a sitting judge must be supported by a sworn affidavit and verified evidence. None of these procedural steps appear in the story in question, underscoring its fabrication.
Why Justice Tsoho is being blackmailed
Behind the lurid headlines of the so-called “$5 million bribery scandal” lies a far more calculated bid to blackmail Justice Tsoho for simply performing his lawful administrative duties.
Fresh investigations reveal that the entire allegation was fabricated to distract public attention from the procedural irregularities that surrounded the ex-parte orders granted in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025 between FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & Anor. and Nestoil Limited & Others.
The facts are straightforward. Following the ex-parte ruling by Justice Deinde Dipeolu, which, unusually, granted interim orders that mirrored the substantive reliefs sought in the originating summons, several petitions were submitted to the Chief Judge.
Three separate petitions were received: one from the fourth defendant and two from the defendant’s lead counsel, Mofesomo Tayo Oyetibo, SAN. These petitions, all lodged in accordance with judicial procedure, raised critical legal questions about the propriety and scope of the orders issued.
Among other irregularities, the petitions highlighted that: The ex-parte orders were identical in content to the substantive claims — effectively determining the entire suit without hearing the other side; the court not only authorized the Nigerian Police to assist the Receiver but extended this to the Navy and the DSS, a highly unusual and extrajudicial inclusion; while one order directed the Receiver to preserve Nestoil’s assets, another paradoxically empowered him to dispose of them, including the sale of crude oil, two mutually exclusive directives and the 14-day lifespan of ex-parte orders was exceeded, violating established legal limits and constitutional safeguards of fair hearing.
In view of these concerns, the Chief Judge did not, as falsely reported, order the transfer of the case, demand a bribe, or direct Justice Dipeolu’s recusal. He simply requested a formal response from the trial judge within seven days and instructed that proceedings be paused in the interim to uphold judicial propriety.
This was a textbook exercise of administrative oversight, not interference. The Chief Judge acted to preserve the sanctity of the court, not to compromise it.
It is precisely this lawful intervention that has provoked the smear campaign now rippling through certain online platforms. Those intent on shielding procedural missteps have found it expedient to target the Chief Judge, hoping to drown fact in scandal.
Independent findings confirmed that no bribe was ever solicited or paid, and that the Chief Judge’s actions were in full compliance with the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules and his constitutional mandate to supervise and discipline judicial officers when petitions arise.
This campaign of falsehood and character assassination, therefore, is not journalism, it is blackmail by proxy, driven by interests unsettled by the Chief Judge’s insistence on due process.
Justice Tsoho, a jurist of over three decades’ standing and one of the longest-serving Chief Judges of the Federal High Court, has built a reputation for restraint, balance, and fidelity to the rule of law. To construe his administrative prudence as bribery is to invert the truth.
The real story is not about money, it is about mischief. The so-called bribery scandal is the desperate retaliation of those whose procedural shortcuts have been exposed to lawful scrutiny. It is, in essence, a vendetta disguised as investigation, intended to undermine a judge whose only offense is his refusal to bend institutional integrity to private convenience.
A warning against judicial blackmail
It is important to caution the public and stakeholders in the legal and financial sectors to treat the bribery allegation with absolute skepticism. Spurious reports like this are not mere journalistic lapses, they are tools of judicial blackmail aimed at manipulating perception and obstructing justice.
Such publications erode faith in the courts, discourage investment, and endanger the fragile integrity of Nigeria’s commercial dispute system.
Media practitioners must resist being used as conduits for blackmail.
As the Press Council Code and the Nigerian Broadcasting Code emphasize, every serious allegation must be verified by at least two independent and named sources before publication.
After careful review of all available evidence, it is clear that: No credible proof exists of any financial transaction between Nestoil and the Chief Judge; Nestoil’s petition was lawful and procedural, not criminal; Case reassignment, if it occurs, falls within the administrative purview of the Chief Judge.
The supposed “$5 million bribe” exists only in the imagination of those seeking to sensationalize corporate litigation; Justice John Tsoho remains a jurist of integrity, and Nestoil continues to operate as a responsible Nigerian conglomerate defending its legitimate business interests through lawful means.
The story of a “$5 million judicial bribe” is not an exposé but an engineered falsehood, circulated to manipulate public opinion and sabotage due process.
The judiciary, already burdened by public scepticism, deserves the protection of truth, and
Nestoil, as one of Nigeria’s indigenous champions in energy and infrastructure, deserves fair hearing, not trial by headline.
Until credible evidence emerges, the public must treat the bribery story for what it is: a fiction of convenience, a smear without substance, and an assault on justice itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment