The Federal High Court in Kaduna has convicted Ruth Ogunleye over defamatory publications against the Commandant of the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA), Major General Oluyemi Thomas Olatoye, sentencing her to a total fine of N500,000 and a one-year custodial term on each of two counts, suspended for three years under a plea bargain agreement.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rilwanu Aikawa of Court One, Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division, following an agreement reached between the prosecution and the defendant pursuant to Section 270 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
Ogunleye was initially arraigned on a five-count charge instituted by the Inspector-General of Police(IGP) Olatunji Rilwan Disu over alleged defamatory video publications circulated through her TikTok account, @ogunleyeruthsavage, on or about August 14, 2026.
The prosecution accused her of intentionally transmitting and publishing videos containing allegations against Major General Oluyemi Thomas Olatoye knowing the claims to be false and with the intention of causing annoyance, insult, injury, hatred, ill will and damage to his reputation.
One of the charges centred on a TikTok video captioned, “Maj General Yemi Olatoye is responsible for my death”, in which she allegedly displayed the senior military officer’s photograph.
Another count concerned a publication captioned, “I go post your oga own too, your oga own dey my phone”, in which she allegedly referred to the NDA commandant and made statements concerning him.
The five-count charge also contained allegations relating to claims that she possessed intimate photographs of the senior military officer and threatened to publish materials concerning him.
The offences were brought under Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended by the Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024, and punishable under Section 24(2) of the Act.
However, following negotiations between the parties, the prosecution and the defence reached a plea bargain agreement after Ogunleye pleaded guilty to Counts One and Two, while Counts Three, Four and Five were to be withdrawn upon her conviction.
The agreement, which was subsequently filed before the court, formed the basis of the judgment. Under the agreement, Ogunleye was sentenced to pay N250,000 on each of the two counts, amounting to N500,000 in favour of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
She was also sentenced to one year imprisonment on each count, (two years) with the terms to run concurrently.
However, the custodial sentences were suspended for three years, subject to her compliance with the conditions stipulated in the plea bargain.
The agreement specifically requires the defendant to demonstrate remorse and undertake not to engage in similar conduct again.
It further directs her to tender a public apology in two national daily newspapers within 14 days of sentencing, in a form approved by counsel to the nominal complainant.
One of the major conditions of the agreement prohibits Ogunleye from making any further statements, publications or communications relating to the nominal complainant.
The restriction covers statements made through spoken words, text messages, social media platforms or any other means, whether personally or through another person and irrespective of the name or account used.
She is also prohibited from contacting the nominal complainant directly or indirectly.
The agreement further requires her to delete, within 48 hours of her release from custody, all posts and videos relating to the nominal complainant from her TikTok accounts and any other accounts under her control.
She is equally prohibited from republishing or sharing such materials with anyone.
Paragraph Six of the agreement provides that any breach of the conditions contained in paragraphs Four and Five during the three-year suspension period could result in the defendant being brought back before the court to serve the suspended prison sentence in full, once the court is satisfied that a breach has occurred.
The agreement also provides that her undertaking not to make further publications or contact the nominal complainant shall remain binding for life.
The Presiding, Justice Rilwanu Aikawa, ask Ogunleye if she had accepted the terms of the Plea which she further consented to the issuance of a restraining order under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, to remain in force until further order of the court. The defence counsel, I. S Yahaya, then subsequently endorsed the terms of plea bargain.
Speaking after the proceedings, Mohammed Sani Katu, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), counsel representing the nominal complainant, explained that the case was resolved through a plea bargain after the defendant’s lawyer approached the prosecution to explore an understanding.
Katu said the case, which attracted considerable attention on social media, initially involved five counts filed by the Inspector-General of Police following the defendant’s arrest.
“It is a matter between the Federal Police and Ruth Ogunleye. The matter has been trending on social media, as you can confirm,” he said.
According to him, following the defendant’s arraignment, her lawyer approached the prosecution and proposed that the parties reach an understanding that would bring the proceedings to an end without necessarily going through a full trial.
He explained that the negotiations resulted in a formal plea bargain agreement, an arrangement recognised under Nigerian law.
He disclosed that the parties eventually agreed that the prosecution would withdraw Counts Three, Four and Five, while the defendant would plead guilty to Counts One and Two.
“She pleaded guilty last week, and the matter was adjourned until today for parties to file what we call the plea bargain terms,” he said.
Katu explained that after the agreement was filed, the court proceeded to deliver judgment on the basis of the negotiated terms.
The senior lawyer said the court imposed a one-year custodial sentence on each of the two counts, alongside a fine of N250,000 per count, bringing the total financial penalty to N500,000.
He clarified that although the custodial sentences were imposed, they were suspended for three years to give the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate remorse and comply with the conditions agreed upon by the parties.
“Having pleaded guilty, she was sentenced to serve the prison time of one year each on the two counts and then to pay a fine of N250,000 on each count, cumulatively N500,000.
“Now, the sentence is suspended for three years so that we can put her under observation to see whether she will be remorseful. “If within these three years she violates these terms, she will be brought back to serve the sentence,” he said.
Katu stressed that the suspension did not mean the custodial sentence had been cancelled, explaining that the defendant remained bound by the conditions of the agreement throughout the suspension period.
He said the court-approved restrictions were particularly important because of the nature of the publications and the allegations made against the nominal complainant.
The prosecuting counsel further explained that the plea bargain went beyond the immediate three-year suspension period, as the defendant had undertaken not to engage in any activity relating to the nominal complainant in violation of the agreement.
He said the parties considered it necessary to include the restrictions to prevent a recurrence of the conduct that resulted in the prosecution.
“After these three years again, in order that she will just go scot-free, the whole terms of the plea bargain will now also come into place that she should not do anything that has to do with the nominal complainant,” he said.
He maintained that her guilty plea and conviction were significant in resolving the allegations contained in the two counts to which she admitted guilt.
“Don’t forget the charge, how it looks like. She said she has his pictures, she did whatever and so on and so forth.
“Now, for her to have pleaded guilty means that all that she said in that TikTok is not true. And on that basis, she was convicted and judgment was delivered,” he said.
The lawyer emphasised that any violation of the conditions could expose the defendant to the suspended custodial sentence, subject to the court determining that a breach had occurred.
