Actress Doris Ogala kneels, apologises for disrupting court

Nollywood actress Doris Ogala, on Friday, knelt down before a Federal High Court in Lagos to apologise to the court over her unruly behaviour during an earlier sitting.

She was, however, returned to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre after the court reserved ruling on her bail application till November 6.

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

The actress, who had been remanded at the correctional centre following her arraignment on Wednesday, personally appealed to the judge, saying she regretted her actions and never expected to find herself in prison custody.

She said, “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.

“I regret my actions 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 her unruly behaviour on Wednesday, after she was remanded.

Ogala allegedly shouted and sang in the courtroom, disrupting proceedings and forcing the court to rise.

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

The judge said he had considered committing the actress for contempt on the day of the incident but decided against it, despite believing that her conduct warranted punishment.

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

The judge further said the actress could have received at least two months’ imprisonment for obstructing court proceedings.

Expressing his displeasure, Aluko said, “Why do you have to start shouting and start singing in the open court? You conducted yourself in a manner that forced the court to rise. That’s what you did, and it’s already recorded.”

He also faulted the defence counsel for failing to begin his address on the bail application by not acknowledging the incident and explaining the defendant’s conduct to the court.

The judge recalled that he had personally directed an accelerated consideration of the bail application, explaining that he had taken steps to ensure that it was heard within 48 hours.

He expressed disappointment that the Wednesday disruption occurred despite the court’s efforts to give the matter accelerated attention.

Ogala’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, also apologised to the judge, describing the incident as regrettable and assuring the court that such conduct was not consistent with his client’s character.

He said he had known the defendant for some time and did not expect her to behave in that manner.

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

Moving the application, Abubakar urged the court to admit his client 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 showed that it was not opposed to the defendant being released but was concerned about the conditions attached to her release.

According to him, where the prosecution accepts that a defendant may be admitted to bail, the court should exercise its discretion judicially and impose reasonable conditions.

He argued that bail conditions should not be unnecessarily restrictive, urging the judge to consider the circumstances of the case and the applicable provisions of the law.

The defence counsel also cited judicial authorities in support of his argument that bail conditions should be reasonable and should not undermine the right of an accused person to liberty pending trial.

However, the prosecution, led by Tolulope Mokolu, urged the court to impose stringent conditions on the actress, particularly in view of concerns about her activities on social media.

The prosecution argued that Ogala’s continued use of social media could negatively affect witnesses and potentially interfere with the administration of justice.

He maintained that although the defendant enjoyed the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, such rights were not absolute and must be exercised within the limits of the law.

Mokolu therefore urged the court to restrict her contact with witnesses and their addresses and 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, where she will remain pending the court’s decision on her bail application.

The actress 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.

Prosecution counsel, Tolulope Mokolu, alleged that Ogala committed the offences between September 2024 and March 2026.

Mokolu told the court that the actress 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.

She pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In an interview with Ogala’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, said he will petition the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, to withdraw the criminal charges against his client, describing the case as a private dispute between former lovers.

Abubakar disclosed this on Friday while reacting to the decision of the Federal High Court in Lagos to reserve ruling on Ogala’s bail application till November 6, 2026.

Speaking after the proceedings, Abubakar said he believed the prosecution of Ogala was an infringement on her fundamental rights, insisting that the dispute which led to the charges arose from a failed relationship.

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 fell apart, and one of the lovers felt cheated, and she reacted through the platform that she has.”

The lawyer stated that the state should not ordinarily involve itself in such a private dispute, adding that Nigerians had the right to express their grievances.

He said, “As far as I am concerned, these are private issues and private matters that the state ordinarily should not involve itself with. Nigerians have a fundamental right to express their grievances and express themselves in manners that they deem fit and appropriate.

“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.”

Abubakar further said that individuals who felt defamed by another person’s statements should seek redress through civil proceedings rather than using law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute their critics.

According to him, democracy accommodates dissent and criticism, even where the expressions are considered offensive.

“Democracy accepts dissent. Democracy accepts even vulgar abuses where a person feels strongly defamed by the utterances of a person who has exercised his right under the law as it relates to their fundamental rights to express themselves.

“The natural remedy for such a person is to file a civil matter under the tort of defamation. If I feel strongly defamed by the utterances of a particular person, what I naturally would want to do is to go to court, where my integrity and reputation can be put on the line,” he said.

The lawyer maintained that approaching law enforcement agencies to arrest individuals over criticism or insults had no place in a democratic society.

He also called for the removal of provisions of the Cybercrimes Act which, according to him, criminalise free speech.

Abubakar recalled that in 2022, challenges were brought before the courts against provisions of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, particularly Section 24, which he said had been declared unconstitutional in two separate judgments for violating the right to freedom of expression and provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

He said the National Assembly subsequently amended the Act in 2024 to address concerns surrounding the criminalisation of free speech.

However, he alleged that security agencies had continued to apply the law without adequately reflecting the amendments.

The lawyer accused some influential individuals and public officials of using law enforcement agencies to intimidate critics, arguing that such practices undermined democratic freedoms.

He said, “Today, when you insult somebody who is a man of means, or you insult a government official who has done something very bad, the same government official will simply approach the police and give them money to arrest and detain such an individual. In a democracy, this should never be.”

Asked whether he would formally challenge the prosecution, having appeared before the court, Abubakar said he intended to write directly to the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, urging him to intervene.

He said, “It is also my honest belief that this matter should be discontinued and the charges withdrawn. In that regard, I will be filing an application to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General to withdraw this charge because it ought not to have been filed in the first place.”

He added that the request would be made in the interest of justice, insisting that the dispute should not proceed as a criminal case against a Nigerian citizen.