An application filed by Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs minister in a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Nyanya, seeking to stop a woman, Uwani Arabi and two others from further making any form of publications about a paternity dispute between them has been rejected.
The presiding judge, Justice Aliyu Shafa, in a ruling, refused Turaki’s motion on the ground that he had sought similar prayer in the main suit.
Justice Shafa held among others, that granting the prayer sought in the motion would amount to deciding the substantive case.
The judge, however, granted an order for accelerated hearing in the substantive and adjourned the matter until Nov. 13 for definite hearing.
Turaki, in the main suit marked: CV/189/2024, had accused Arabi, her ex-husband, Musa Baffa and her daughter, Hadiza, of defaming him.
The ex-minister alleged that the defendants raised allegations of sexual impropriety against him to the extent of claiming he fathered a child through Hadiza.
In a supporting affidavit, Turaki stated that the interim restraining order was necessary to stop the defendants from further spreading false information against him during the pendency of the substantive suit.
Turaki, who is claiming damages in several millions of naira against the defendants, said he was a benefactor to Arabi and Hadiza because he took responsibility of paying her fees while she schooled in Baze University, Abuja and assisted her mother too financially.
He denied allegations of sexual impropriety allegedly raised against him by the defendants, stating that he only fell out with the mother and daughter because he stopped Hadiza from further visiting him when her alleged criminal acts became unbearable for him.
In their joint statement of defence, the defendants denied defaming the ex-minister, insisting that he was the one who volunteered to sponsor Hadiza’s university education.
They also denied that Hadiza was involved in some criminal acts, alleging that the former minister took advantage of her by sleeping with her until she became pregnant.
The defendants stated that “none of them made slanderous allegation or defamed the character of the claimant but rather, it was the claimant that slandered and defamed the reputable name of their family by breaching the trust of their family.”
They claimed that the claimant “is frustrating investigation into the matter, more especially when it came to his knowledge that the only way to know the truth of the matter is by conducting DNA test.
“The defendants aver that the Investigation Police Officers are of the same opinion that since it is a matter that involves paternity of a baby girl, only DNA Test can resolve the issue between the claimant and the defendants.
“The defendants, at the trial of this suit, will rely on all the voice messages, conversation, WhatsApp chats, medical reports and any other documents closely or remotely related to this case,” they averred.