How Chikamnayo Denied Owning Facebook Page Used to Attack Governor Otti in Explosive Court Defence | READ DETAILS

A dramatic defence has been filed in Abuja as Eze Chikamnayo denies owning the Facebook page used to attack Governor Alex Otti. The identity dispute now dominates the case. Read full story.

A dramatic twist has hit the defamation suit filed by Governor Alex Chioma Otti, OFR, as former Abia State Commissioner for Information, Hon. Barr. Eze Chikamnayo, formally denied owning or operating the Facebook page allegedly used to launch repeated attacks against the governor.

In a statement of defence filed before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Chikamnayo told the court that the controversial Facebook account known as “Iyierioba Chikamnayo” does not belong to him and was never operated by him at any time.

The case, marked CV/3921/2025, has now shifted sharply from allegations of defamation to a deeper legal battle over digital identity, account ownership, and proof of publication.

In his defence, Chikamnayo stated that he has never owned, operated, managed, or published any content on the Facebook wall used to post messages describing Governor Otti in derogatory terms.

He denied all publications linked to the page, including multiple posts cited by the claimant, and challenged Governor Otti to provide strict proof that he was behind the account or authorized any of the posts.

According to the former commissioner, the entire case rests on wrongful attribution, insisting that he is not the person behind the page and should not be held responsible for content he neither created nor shared.

However, Chikamnayo’s defence has triggered intense reactions across social media platforms, with many readers expressing skepticism over the claim that the Facebook handle does not belong to him.

Several users argue that the page had, over time, consistently published personal political positions, insider commentary, and narratives closely linked to Chikamnayo’s public persona and past roles, making it difficult for them to accept that the account was operated by an unknown third party.

While these reactions remain opinions and not legal proof, they have added a new layer of public interest to the case, turning it into one of the most closely followed political court battles in Abuja and Abia State.

Technology experts consulted by All Facts Newspaper note that digital footprints rarely disappear, even when account ownership is disputed.

According to them, if properly investigated, data such as login patterns, IP addresses, device fingerprints, linked emails, browsing behavior, and historical account activity can help establish probable control or use of a social media account.

They explained that modern digital forensics makes it possible to determine whether an account was operated from devices or networks previously associated with a specific individual — if the court orders such technical analysis.

Experts caution, however, that such findings must come from certified forensic examinations and not speculation, emphasizing that the final determination lies solely with the court.

Legal observers say Chikamnayo’s denial has effectively transformed the suit into a test of whether the claimant can legally link a real person to a digital account beyond name similarity or circumstantial evidence.

By placing ownership of the Facebook page in dispute, the defendant has shifted the burden of proof back to the governor’s legal team, who must now establish direct control, authorization, or authorship of the alleged posts.

To strengthen his position, Chikamnayo also informed the court that the phone number allegedly used to serve him letters connected to the posts was stolen long before the publications were made, making it impossible for him to receive or respond to the notices.

This claim further complicates the question of whether the defendant had any digital access or operational control linked to the disputed Facebook page at the time the posts were made.

With the defendant disowning the Facebook account entirely and public opinion divided, the court will now have to determine whether the posts can be technically and legally traced to Chikamnayo or whether the suit collapses under identity uncertainty.

Legal analysts say the next phase of proceedings could become the defining moment of the case, especially if digital forensic evidence is introduced or if the court orders further verification of account ownership.

For now, the battle has moved beyond words to a test of technology, evidence, and credibility — a legal confrontation that could set a major precedent for political defamation cases in the digital age.