Nigeria Lawyer, Emeka Ugwonye, Loses Libel Lawsuit Aimed At Suppressing Activists

Emeka Ugwonye, the Washington DD -based lawyer who made a habit of using libel lawsuits to suppress public debate about the controversial sale of properties belonging to the Nigerian embassy in Washington DC and Maryland, has lost a second lawsuit at the Maryland Circuit Court for Montgomery.

 Mr. Ugwuonye had sued Professor Mobolaji Aluko at the US District court regarding a comment the professor made in a popular chatroom,"Naijapolitics," following the publication by Saharareporters of a detailed report about the controversial sale of the embassy’s properties.


After Mr. Ugwuonye received his professional fees for the transaction, he seized cash worth $1.5 million from the proceeds claiming that the federal government of Nigeria was owing him unpaid fees for an unrelated case.

In addition to the dismissal of Mr. Ugwuonye’s case by the federal court, he was also sanctioned for filing a frivolous case in a wrong court. He later filed the case in a state court, but knowing Ugwuonye was using the law courts to harass and suppress his fundamental rights, defendant Aluko countersued Mr. Ugwuonye for malicious prosecution and defamation for calling him a 'bigot.'



The judge today allowed defendant Aluko’s motion for summary judgment.  He also refused to dismiss the suit filed by Aluko to make Ugwuonye pay for malicious prosecution.  Furthermore, the judge agreed with Aluko that his statements were true and that there was no element of defamation against the plaintiff.

Emeka's case against another internet commentator, Valentine Ojo will proceed next week. Also, a lawsuit filed against Omoyele Sowore "DBA" SaharaReporters awaits the decision of a federal judge in Maryland.

Before the case against Aluko was dismissed, the defendant found out through discovery that the former Nigerian ambassador, George Obiozor had granted Mr. Ugwuonye the power of attorney to receive and disburse embassy funds regarding the real estate transactionThis is unusual as embassy staff are always present to perform the ambassador’s role whenever he is absent.  This was in addition to his being the attorney in fact in the transactions. The power of attorney was apparently given to Mr. Ugwuonye to enable him control the funds belonging to the Nigerian government to his advantage.

Armed with the power of attorney, Mr. Ugwuonye took control of the funds and held on to the $1.5 million that he claimed had been a "tax refund" from the IRS, but in his motion for dismissal, attorney to Prof. Aluko averred that the IRS could not have held on to taxes in a local transaction when the embassy properties were tax exempt ab nitio.

Since the advent of new media, the Nigerian government has tacitly funded lawsuits against citizen advocates and websites in the form of libel lawsuits with the aim of suppressing those platforms.  Mr. Ugwuonye’a lawsuit against Saharareporters is the second from entities working for the Nigerian government; the first lawsuit, which sought to bankrupt the publishers of Saharareporters, was filed by Paul Orhii in Texas on behalf of the Yar'Adua regime.  Shortly after Dr. Orhii filed the lawsuit against Saharareporters he was rewarded with the job of Director General of Nigeria's lucrative drug regulation agency, NAFDAC.  The suit was dismissed afterwards.

Two months ago, a third lawsuit was filed against SaharaReporters by Eric Abakporo, who enjoys the blessing of the Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Professor Joy Ogwu. Mr. Abakporo is suing SaharaReporters for $30 million following a report we did detailing the building renovation scams at the Nigerian mission.

{joomplu:2519}{joomplu:2520}{joomplu:2521}{joomplu:2522}{joomplu:2523}{joomplu:2524}{joomplu:2525}
--------
EPHRAIM UGWUONYE            *

    Plaintiff                *

v.                        *   

MOBOLAJI E. ALUKO, et al.        *

    Defendant                *
   
___________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
   
    Defendant, Mobolaji Aluko, by and through his undersigned counsels, Muyiwa Sobo, Esquire, and the Law Firm of Blair & Lee, P.C., submits this Memorandum in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501.  As described below, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as the alleged defamatory statement was true, it was protected under the First Amendment, and the defamation and false light claims are prohibited by Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-807 – the Maryland anti-SLAPP statute.

    I.    INTRODUCTION

     In the instant action Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye, (“Plaintiff”), pro se, is an attorney and a member of the bar in Maryland and other jurisdictions. His defamation and false light claims are deliberate attempt to silence public comments on the inappropriate role he played in several controversial real estate transactions of the Nigerian Embassy.  The statement that the Plaintiff challenges was written by Aluko on March 10, 2009, and published on NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com, a popular internet chat room for Nigerians. (See Complaint, Paragraph 29). The statement was made as part of a long topical thread of reactions to a story published on the internet by SaharaReporters.com on March 5, 2009.  The article titled “Property scandal rocks Nigerian Embassy in Washington DC; former Ambassador Obiozor fingered” raised questions about apparent disparities in real estate transactions involving the embassy and the controversial role played by the Plaintiff who was acting as counsel - both as attorney at law and attorney-in-fact -  to the embassy during the transactions. (See Defendant’s Exhibit A)

    Aluko, a tenured professor of chemical engineering at Howard University, Washington, DC, because of his family’s well-known involvement in Nigerian politics (his father was once senior adviser to many state and federal governments in Nigeria; his brother was once a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and his own political activism for transparent government in Nigeria (he is president of the Nigerian Democratic Movement NDM, and Coordinator of the Nigerian Diaspora Electoral Reform Group NDERG), is a popular internet commentator on Nigerian political affairs. (See Affidavit of Mobolaji Aluko, attached, as Defendant’s Exhibit B). Due to Nigeria’s history of corruption, Nigerians, especially in the Diaspora, consider the internet as a dependable and independent source for news out of Nigeria.  SaharaReporters.com has developed a reputation for investigative reporting revealing astounding corrupt practices among key Nigerian officials. (See copy of Affidavit of Omoyele Sowore, attached as Defendant’s Exhibit C). 

    II.    UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

According to Saharareporters.com, Plaintiff acted as counsel to the Nigerian Embassy in the sale of several real properties including the former residence of the ambassador. Public documents available about the sale price of some of the properties showed suspicious variations in the sale prices of the properties and the amount reported to the embassy.  Records show that Plaintiff was compensated for his work as counsel; but in addition, he was reported to have impounded approximately $1.55 million of money belonging to the embassy.  Plaintiff, in the SaharaReporters.com news interview and subsequent records, claimed that the money was an IRS tax refund that he received on behalf of the embassy.  He claimed that he decided to impound the money as compensation for past legal work done for the Nigerian government but unrelated to the real estate transactions. In making his case following an embassy query, Plaintiff hired Bruce Fein, Esquire, who tried to convince the embassy that the impoundment was legal.  The embassy disagreed and reported Plaintiff to the District of Columbia Bar Counsel for ethical violation. 

As usual, when it comes to the issue of corruption in Nigeria, the SaharaReporter.com story attracted massive attention and comments from Nigerians.   The key question asked by many was how in the first instance an attorney was able to impound money belonging to his client without any repercussion, especially when the news report included the fact that Plaintiff formerly served a 90-day suspension from the practice of law in Maryland for ethical violations involving two former clients.  The other question raised was how the IRS, as claimed by Plaintiff, could have become involved in local real estate transaction or any transaction involving a foreign embassy when it was obvious to many Nigerians in the U.S. that the embassy was tax exempt as proven by documents of diplomatic tax waiver obtained during discovery. (See Defendant Exhibit D)

The truth of the matter became apparent during discovery, when it was revealed that in addition to his role as counsel, Plaintiff, in an egregious conflict of interest, had obtained a Power of Attorney (“POA”), from the embassy. (See Defendant Exhibit E). The POA gave Plaintiff unfettered power to receive and disburse funds on behalf of the embassy.  The POA was authorized by Ambassador Obiozor, the former ambassador during whose tenure the controversial real estate transactions occurred.   It is unusual, probably unprecedented, for an embassy to give such broad POA to a non-embassy staff, especially an attorney who was already acting as legal counsel. It became more suspicious when it was discovered that Ambassador Obiozor had previously authorized embassy officials to act on his behalf regarding real estate matters during his absence. (See Defendant’s Exhibit F). The POA given to the Plaintiff was therefore an unusual and rightfully suspicious one if not outright illegal. At the minimum, it legitimately raised ethical questions regarding professional conduct of the Plaintiff, an attorney, who was owed money by the Embassy before obtaining the POA, and must had therefore probably intended beforehand to use the POA to recover money purportedly owed to him by his client in an unrelated case.  That was the gist of the statement made by Defendant and challenged as defamatory by the Plaintiff.

Deceptively, Plaintiff only chose to recite part of the statement he challenges (in  bold italics and below); the full statement, however, posted on March 13, 2009, by Aluko on NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com, was directed at one Professor Adeniran Adeboye, and read fully thus:
Prof. Adeboye:

You think Ogbunwezeh does not understand that (among other things) “it was precisely Ambassador Rotimi’s efforts to uncover the fraud that alienated him from others and eventually led to the exchange between him and the minister?” All the letters flying between the Embassy and Obiozor and Bruce Fein and Ugwuonye from June to September 2008 just HAPPENED on their own – because (according to Ogbunwezeh) Rotimi “did not nothing, only to start shouting once he was kicked out of office”.
 
Only Ogbunwezeh and his ilk believe in his red monkey tactics of shouting and ventilating to distract from the main point. Just make declarative statements of victory – and go home.  The only thing that they know is accuse of hatred and blackmail and tribalism. $29 million worth of property is bought and sold in two years, and $1.55 million of government money is impounded by a Nigerian citizen – and we are not to bring it up because of timing, otherwise it is tribalistic? Do you see the hypocracy?

Ha!

Bolaji Aluko 

A commentator by the name of Professor Adeniran Adeboye (who writes from Washington, DC), had responded to another commentator by the name of Franklyne Ogbunwezeh (who writes from Germany, and who had attempted to color the reported controversy with tribal sentiments) that (in Adeniran’s exact words, inter alia) ““it was precisely Ambassador Rotimi’s efforts to uncover the fraud that alienated him from others and eventually led to the exchange between him and the minister?”.  In his response to Adeniran, Aluko, merely rhetorically regurgitated Adeniran’s statement, additionally opining that the reported exchanges between former Ambassador Obiozor, recently dismissed Ambassador Rotimi (who was immediate successor to Ambassador Obiozor), the Plaintiff and his lawyer Bruce Fein, could not have happened unless something inappropriate had appeared to occur.  (See Defendant Exhibit G). In fact, something inappropriate did happen: Plaintiff had impounded money belonging to the embassy probably enabled by the unusual POA or other strange arrangement between him and the ambassador who suspiciously strayed out of normal practice to grant the POA to the Plaintiff, a non-embassy staff.

In order to silence the comments which were increasing by the day, on March 13, 2009, three days after the statement appeared on NaijaPolitics.com, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit deliberately in the US District Court for defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence, against Ambassador Rotimi, Aluko, Saharareporters.com, and Domain-by-proxy, the internet host of SaharaReporters.com.  Plaintiff ensured that the lawsuit was made known to all NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com subscribers by posting information on his Complaint on the internet. See Exhibit I, ¶ 11) Plaintiff, a lawyer, knew that the US District Court lacked jurisdiction in the case as he and Aluko are both residents of Maryland.  He however filed the lawsuit just to silence the increasing negative comment about his involvements in the real estate transaction.  When it became obvious, over his vehement objections, that the Court was going to allow the release of certain documents pertinent to the real estate transaction, including the POA, during discovery, he attempted to dismiss the case against Aluko having achieved his objective of silencing further comments on the transaction.  The court allowed Plaintiff to dismiss the case; however, he was fined $750 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  In retaliation, and to save face among his internet cheerleaders, Plaintiff filed this matter on May 27, 2009 before the final disposal of the US District Court matter.

    III.    SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
    Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501(a), summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Delia v. Berkey, 41 Md. App. 47 (1978), aff’d, 287 Md. 302 (1980), See also King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98 (1985);  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1990).  Summary judgment is appropriately granted when a party having the burden of proof on a particular claim is unable to either produce admissible evidence or point in the records to admissible evidence which would be sufficient to support a jury verdict on each element of the claim.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Thus, to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce “material facts which would be admissible in evidence” that demonstrate a genuine need for trial. Seaboard Surety v. Kline, Inc., 91 Md. App. 236, 243 (1992).  The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the non-moving party “fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.  The purpose of the rule on summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and money when no genuine dispute exists.  Cheney v. Bell National Life Ins., 70 Md. App. 163, 166; 520 A.2d 402, 404 (1987), aff’d, 315 Md. 761 (1989).

    IV.     ARGUMENT

    A.    Truth is a Complete Defense to Defamation and False Light

    To establish defamation in Maryland, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person; that the statement was false; that the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement; and that the plaintiff thereby suffered harm. Rosenberg v. Helinski, 616 A.2d 866, 871 (Md. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 924 (1993). Generally, to be actionable a statement must contain or imply a statement of provable facts or factual connotation. Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1093 (4th Cir. 1993). If the gist or sting of a statement is substantially true, minor inaccuracies will not give rise to a defamation claim. AIDS Counseling & testing Ctrs. V. Group W Television, Inc., 900 F.2d 1000, 1004 (4th Cir. 1990).

    To state an actionable false light claim, a plaintiff must show publicity in a false light which a reasonable person would find highly offensive; and that the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter placing plaintiff in a false light. Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 665 A.2d 297 (Md. App. 1995), cert. denied, 669 A.d 1360 (Md. 1996). Complete defense exists where the statement is true or the plaintiff consented to the publication. Hollander v. Lubow, 277 Md. 47, 57 (1976). As such, the same standard of proof applies to defamation as well as false light.

    In his published statement, Aluko, did not accuse the Defendant of fraud; in fact in an earlier email in the thread, Plaintiff stated clearly that he was not certain “whether there is fraud in the case.” (See Defendant Exhibit H : Aluko’s email to Hope Umana). Nevertheless, the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true in context as it indicated the inappropriateness of a transaction where an attorney is able to keep monies belonging to his client while acting in the conflicting role of an attorney-in-fact – in this case the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria - and the efforts mounted by the attorney to refute the suspicion of inappropriateness.      As indicated in the statement: (1) It is highly irregular, professionally improper, and probably illegal for Ugwuonye to act pursuant to a POA as attorney-in-fact in a transaction where he represented the embassy as counsel which arrangement probably enable him to impound funds belonging to the embassy, (the truth that Plaintiff was suspended from the practice of law in Maryland for 90 days in 2008 concerning two former clients formed a legitimate opinion. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 335, 375). (2) In fact, Plaintiff did withhold $1.55 million from the proceeds of the sales of the embassy properties in form of IRS tax returns as he himself confirmed in many internet comments (See Defendant Exhibit I, ¶ 1: Email of Ugwuonye to Ola Kassim,). And (3), in fact, there were exchanges of letters between the Plaintiff, his lawyer, Bruce Fein, the embassy, and Ambassador Obiozor;  Plaintiff himself did write an email to Ojo Maduekwe, the then Nigerian Foreign Minister, who had administrative jurisdiction over the embassy, complaining of Ambassador Rotimi’s conduct and requesting a permission to file a lawsuit. (See Defendant’s Exhibit J); particularly, Plaintiff wrote to the embassy on December 11, 2007 promising to return the funds being withheld; absent such a return, Plaintiff’s lawyer, Bruce Fein, wrote to the embassy on August 8, 2008, pleading that his client Ugwuonye had legal right to the money that he was withholding; and Plaintiff Ugwuonye also sent an email to Ambassador Obiozor in response to his letter of August 30, 2008. (See Defendant’s Exhibit I, ¶ 8).

    Overall, the “gist” or “sting” of the alleged defamatory statement was that truthfully, the Plaintiff had impounded $1.55 million in IRS refund belonging to the embassy in a suspiciously improper manner later confirmed by the discovery of the professionally questionable POA.  He had refused to return the money and hired Bruce Fein to represent him in justifying the impoundment. These are all true, as such; the alleged defamatory statement cannot survive the falsity element.  

    Further, it is highly improbable, perhaps impossible that Plaintiff could have suffered any harm to his reputation or damages to the tune of several millions of dollars within days of the publication.  Plaintiff filed the US District Court case on March 13, 2009 within three days of the publication claiming damages for $20 million.  He filed this matter in state court on May 27, 2009, two months after the alleged defamatory statement.  Defendant was not served court papers (via personal service election) until a motion by the Plaintiff to defer entry of MD Rule 2-507 (Notification of Contemplated Dismissal) was granted on December 10, 2009. On April 21, 2010, Aluko, through counsel, served Plaintiff with interrogatories requesting him to identify any injuries he suffered because of the alleged defamatory statement and invasion of privacy. (See Defendant Exhibit K; Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the Defendant)   Up until this Motion, Plaintiff has failed to provide any response to the interrogatories.  In contrast, Plaintiff, in a published email, boasted that the internet report had positive effects on his reputation as friends and relatives now considered him a rich man, calling to borrow money from him.  (See Defendant’s Exhibit I, ¶ 4).  It is impossible that Plaintiff, under any circumstances, will be able to discern between what harm, if any, was inflicted on him by a mere truthful statement of the Defendant, and the considerable harm to his reputation attributable to the SaharaReporters.com story which contained serious detrimental but  truthful information on his past professional foibles. 

B.    The Statement is Protected Under the First Amendment

    The statement made by Aluko is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a permissible opinion. New York Time Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).  The statement was directed as an opinion concerning transactions in which Plaintiff acted as legal counsel and attorney-in-fact at the same time which enabled him to impound his client’s money, perhaps in violation of professional ethics, is a legitimate topic of discussion consequent to widely circulated story of transactional irregularity published by SaharaReporters.com. “It is firmly settled that … public opinion of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988) (quoting Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 952 (1969)). Therefore, opinion speech such as alleged by the Plaintiff cannot amount to defamation.

    C.    The Statement is Subject to Qualified Immunity Under Maryland Anti-            SLAPP Statute.

    Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed pursuant to Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 5-807(d)(1) (2009), which prohibits strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), also known as Maryland “anti-SLAPP statute.

    In 2004, the Maryland legislature passed H.B.930 “[f]or the purpose of granting qualified immunity from civil liability to a defendant in a [SLAPP suit] who, when communicating with … the public at large, without constitutional malice, exercises rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or certain articles of the Maryland Declaration of Rights regarding certain matters.” See H.B. 930 (2004).  The statute permits a defendant to move to dismiss the suit and have his motion heard as “soon as practicable.” Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 5-807(d)(1).  The statute also permits a defendant to move for a stay of proceedings until the motion to dismiss is resolved. Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 5-807(d)(2).

    Under § 5-807(b), a lawsuit constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) if it is:

1.    Brought in bad faith against a party who has communicated with a     federal, State, or local government body or the public at large to     report on, comment on, rule on, oppose, or in any other way         exercise rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution     or Article 10, Article 13, of Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration     of Rights regarding any matter within the authority of a     government body;

2.    Materially related to the defendant’s communication; and

3.    Intended to inhibit the exercise of rights under rights under the     First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article 10, Article 13,     of Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights

    From the outset, it was evident that Plaintiff’s claim is a classic SLAPP suit.  As alleged in the Complaint, Aluko made the statement expressing his opinions regarding an obviously irregular act of Plaintiff impounding money belonging to the Nigerian government through its embassy in the U.S. These opinions are undoubtedly protected under the First Amendment as well as Article 10, Article 13, and Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.  The opinions were expressed in connection with a matter within the authority of the Nigerian and the U.S. governments because (1) the transaction forming the basis of the comments was connected to properties owned by the Nigerian government through its embassy in the U.S. upon which the U.S. Department of States has jurisdiction; (2) the actions of the then ambassador in giving the Plaintiff, a private lawyer who was acting as counsel, an unusual POA is an act of the government of Nigeria; and the impoundment of funds belonging to the embassy is an act against the government of Nigeria.

    As stated, many agents of the Nigerian government are notoriously corrupt, lending all their activities to scrutiny by Nigerian activists within and without Nigeria.  The main avenue of vetting government activities is through reports such as usually published on the internet by the likes of SaharaReporters.com.  As a deliberate bad faith attempt to prevent or impede the negative internet comments and publicity attracted by the unusual act of impounding money belonging to the embassy, Plaintiff, strategically and maliciously included Defendant, a popular commentator, but only one of many who commented on the matter, in his federal lawsuit.  When that case was dismissed and he was fined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, Plaintiff needed to save face among those who encouraged him on the internet, and as such, he filed this matter in this Court.

    The timing of his federal lawsuit is also evidence of his bad faith and the intention to inhibit and intimidate Aluko and others defendants.  Plaintiff filed his federal lawsuit barely three days after the alleged statement was published.  Further, he announced the filing of the lawsuit on Naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com, the same internet site where the alleged defamatory statement was published. (See Defendant’s Exhibit I, ¶ 12)  He actively engaged in the discussion of the lawsuit on the internet and encouraged those willing to listen to him to disseminate his communications on the internet.     The Plaintiff filed this action for no other reason than to bully Aluko and others.  For instance, Valentine Ojo, the other defendant in this matter is yet to be served more than a year after the Plaintiff filed his complaint.

    It is also telling that the controversy has caught the attention of the Nigerian legislature whose investigation of the matter has been widely reported in major newspapers throughout Nigeria. (See Defendant’s Exhibit I, ¶¶ 13-22; excerpts of newspaper reports).

    Dismissal under the Maryland anti-SLAPP statute and stay of action until the Court has decided the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment is the antidote that the legislature has put in place to deal with this type of frivolous claims.

    V.    CONCLUSION

    Summary judgment in favor of the Aluko dismissing this action is proper in this matter because truth is an absolute defense against the claim of defamation or false light; Aluko in making the statement as published on the internet was exercising his right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and the law suit is expressly prohibited Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 5-807(d)(1) (2009) because it is a strategic lawsuit against public participation as it regards the Plaintiff’s reasonably questionable involvement in a Nigerian government transaction.
                    Respectfully submitted,

                    _____________________
                    Muyiwa Sobo, Esq.
                    Attorney for Defendant Aluko 

 Plaintiff is referred to as “Emeka” his middle name, in many of the email exchanges attached as Exhibits to this Motion.
 Counsel for Aluko has retained the original Affidavit for review upon request.
 Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009; ¶¶ 200-204 (www.transparency.org/publications)

 The affidavit was made in support of Sowore’s Motion to Dismiss, Ugwuonye v. Rotimi, et al; Civil Action No. 09-00658, a lawsuit lacking diversity and hence wrongfully filed in federal court against Ambassador Oluwole Rotimi with Sowore and Aluko as co-defendants.

 A case of torture unto death of a top political figure who won a June 12, 1993 election in Nigeria was brought in Illinois against a former Nigeria military head of state in which Plaintiff was lead defense counsel.

 The story published by SaharaReporters.com also mentioned that Plaintiff was formerly suspended from law practice in Maryland due similar professional violation. Ugwuonye’s 90-day suspension by the Maryland Court of Appeals and the circumstances surrounding what the court determined were “grave” violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of the representation of two former clients are public record.  Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 355, 375 (2008).
 The transaction was also reported by many Nigerian newspapers prompting a committee of the Nigerian House of Representatives to engage an investigation of the transaction.  The investigation is ongoing. 

 The documents were obtained through a subpoena on Paragon Title & Escrow, LLC who conducted settlement on the sale of the former residence of the Nigerian ambassador.  Plaintiff, worried about what would be revealed by the subpoena, filed a motion to quash.  The motion was denied in an emergency hearing but with a court instruction against publication of documents acquired.

 See Rules 1.7(b) and 1.8(j); Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct.
 Ugwuonye v. Rotimi, et al; Civil Action No. 09-00658
 Motion to Dismiss filed by Sowore in the US District Court matter is still pending ruling by the Court.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

MARYLAND

Civil Action No: 314155-V