Cyberstalking: Doris Ogala Kneels Before Judge, Apologises for Outburst, Remains in Custody

• Court reserves ruling on actress’s bail application till November 6; defence counsel faults prosecution

Wale Igbintade

Nollywood actress, Doris Ogala, yesterday knelt before a Federal High Court in Lagos to apologise for her unruly conduct during an earlier sitting but was returned to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre after the court reserved ruling on her bail application till November 6, 2026.

Ogala, who is facing charges bordering on alleged cyberstalking, cyberbullying and attempted extortion involving Pastor Chris Okafor, expressed remorse before Justice Akintayo Aluko, promising not to repeat the conduct that disrupted proceedings on Wednesday.

Her apology came as her counsel, Marshal Abubakar, announced plans to petition the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, seeking the withdrawal of the charges, which he described as arising from a private disagreement between former lovers.

During Friday’s proceedings, Ogala personally appealed to Justice Aluko for forgiveness, expressing regret over her behaviour at the previous sitting.

“I am very sorry, my Lord. I apologise for my bad behaviour. I have never been to prison before and I wasn’t expecting that I would do that,” she told the court.

She added: “I regret my action and I apologise to my Lord. I tender my apologies wholeheartedly. Sorry, this will never happen again going forward.”

Her apology followed the judge’s expression of displeasure over the incident, during which the actress allegedly shouted and sang in the courtroom, forcing the court to suspend proceedings.

Justice Aluko said her conduct prevented the court from hearing more than seven other cases scheduled for that day.

The judge disclosed that he had considered committing her for contempt but eventually decided against it, despite believing that her conduct warranted punishment.

“She should have been given some form of imprisonment, right, on that day, but I kept my cool and I rose,” the judge said.

He further observed that the actress could have faced at least two months’ imprisonment for obstructing court proceedings.

Justice Aluko also faulted the defence counsel for failing to acknowledge the incident and explain his client’s conduct before proceeding with arguments on the bail application.

He recalled that he had personally directed an accelerated hearing of the application, taking steps to ensure that it was heard within 48 hours.

The judge expressed disappointment that the disruption occurred despite the court’s efforts to expedite the determination of the bail application.

Abubakar also apologised to the judge, describing the incident as regrettable and assuring the court that such behaviour was inconsistent with his client’s character.

Following the apologies, the court proceeded to hear arguments on the bail application.

Moving the application, Abubakar urged the court to admit Ogala to bail, arguing that the prosecution had effectively acknowledged her entitlement to bail by proposing conditions for her release in its counter-affidavit.

He submitted that the prosecution’s position indicated that it was not opposed to her release but was concerned about the conditions to be imposed.

The lawyer urged the court to exercise its discretion judicially and impose reasonable conditions that would not unnecessarily restrict the actress’s liberty pending trial.

However, prosecution counsel, Tolulope Mokolu, urged the court to impose stringent bail conditions, citing concerns about the defendant’s social media activities and their potential impact on witnesses.

Mokolu argued that Ogala’s continued use of social media could influence witnesses and interfere with the administration of justice.

Although acknowledging her constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, the prosecution maintained that such rights were not absolute and must be exercised within the limits of the law.

It urged the court to restrict her contact with witnesses and access to their addresses, as well as prevent her from making social media publications capable of influencing witnesses or undermining the proceedings.

The prosecution further argued that any breach of the proposed bail conditions should attract appropriate sanctions.

After listening to the submissions of both parties, Justice Aluko reserved ruling on the bail application till November 6, 2026.

Ogala was subsequently returned to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre pending the court’s decision.

Speaking after the proceedings, Abubakar faulted the prosecution of his client, arguing that her arrest, investigation and subsequent arraignment constituted an infringement of her fundamental rights, particularly her constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression.

He insisted that the dispute should not have been brought before a criminal court, maintaining that allegations of defamation should ordinarily be addressed through civil proceedings.

The lawyer argued that the disagreement arose from a private relationship between Ogala and Pastor Okafor, whom he described as former lovers.

He said: “I strongly believe that the arrest of Doris Ogala, the investigation as far as this matter is concerned, and the subsequent filing of charges against her are an affront to her fundamental rights.

“The subject matter that led to this entire transaction in this matter was purely a matter between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. Where former lovers who fell apart, and one of the lovers felt cheated, and she reacted through the platform that she has.”

Abubakar argued that the state should not ordinarily intervene in private disagreements by deploying criminal law against individuals expressing their grievances.

According to him, democracy accommodates dissent and criticism, including expressions that may be considered offensive or vulgar.

“The idea of criminalising free speech in this country has been contemptuous. We will never shy away from condemning the idea behind having a law that seeks to, or has, a chilling effect on Nigerians as it relates to how they should express themselves in a democracy,” he said.

The defence counsel also called for the removal of provisions of the Cybercrimes Act which, according to him, criminalise freedom of expression.

He recalled that legal challenges were instituted against provisions of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, particularly Section 24, in 2022.

He said two separate judgments had declared the provisions unconstitutional on grounds that they violated the right to freedom of expression and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

He alleged that despite the National Assembly’s subsequent amendment of the Act in 2024 to address concerns surrounding the criminalisation of free speech, security agencies had continued to apply the law without adequately reflecting the amendments.

Abubakar maintained that anyone who considered himself defamed should institute a civil action rather than resort to law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute critics.

He said he would formally petition the AGF to discontinue the prosecution, insisting that the charges ought not to have been filed in the first place.

Ogala was arraigned on Wednesday by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation on three counts bordering on alleged cyberbullying, cyberstalking and attempted extortion involving Pastor Okafor.

According to the prosecution, the alleged offences were committed between September 2024 and March 2026.

Mokolu told the court that Ogala allegedly published nude and intimate photographs of Okafor on her social media accounts without his consent, exposing him to embarrassment, emotional distress and reputational damage.

The actress, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.