Prof. Gundu’s Lawyers Slam Nasarawa Defamation Suit as “Abuse of Process” in FCT High Court

The legal showdown between Nasarawa State Governor Abdullahi A. Sule and Professor Zacharys Anger Gundu took a sharp turn on Tuesday as Gundu’s defense team filed a blistering Motion on Notice at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, demanding the outright dismissal of the defamation suit brought against their client.

Filed under Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3554/2025 by Professor Sebastine Hon, SAN, the motion accuses the Nasarawa State Government and Governor Sule of weaponizing the courts through a fundamentally flawed case. The defense wants the court to strike out paragraphs 10–12 and 16–35 of the Claimants’ Statement of Claim, arguing they disclose no reasonable cause of action, are frivolous, vexatious, and constitute a blatant abuse of judicial process.

At the heart of the challenge is a jurisdictional bombshell: Gundu’s lawyers insist the FCT High Court has no business hearing the case. An affidavit deposed by Martin Luther Akawe, Chief Litigation Secretary at S.T. Hon (SAN) & Co., points out that the writ of summons failed to comply with basic court rules and that nothing in the originating processes even suggests the Nasarawa State Government was defamed—only Governor Sule was named in the alleged statements.

The motion goes further, dismantling the very structure of the lawsuit. It argues that the Nasarawa State Government and Governor Sule were improperly joined as co-claimants. While the governor may have a personal grievance, the state government—defined constitutionally as a distinct entity—has no legal standing to claim defamation over remarks that never mentioned it. “Nasarawa State,” the defense contends, “is not synonymous with ‘Government of Nasarawa State,’” and lumping the two together in one suit is a fatal legal irregularity.

In a scathing passage, the motion reads: “The combination of a Plaintiff/Claimant who has a cause of action with another Plaintiff/Claimant who has no cause of action and the claiming of reliefs in that suit for their joint benefit is unknown to law.” Such a move, the defense asserts, renders the entire action incompetent, unsustainable, and an abuse of court process.

The case stems from alleged defamatory remarks reportedly made by Professor Gundu, though the exact content remains sealed in court filings. What is clear is that the Nasarawa State Government is seeking both damages and injunctive relief—remedies the defense now argues should never see the light of a full trial.

With the motion now before the court, all eyes are on the presiding judge to fix a hearing date. If granted, Gundu’s application could end the high-profile case before it truly begins, sparing the academic from a potentially protracted legal battle and raising serious questions about the use of public institutions in personal disputes.

For now, the FCT High Court stands at a crossroads: uphold procedural sanctity or allow a case the defense brands as legally malformed to proceed. As political and academic circles watch closely, one thing is certain—this is far from over.