COURT GRANTS DORIS OGALA THIRTY MILLION NAIRA BAIL FOR CYBERSTALKING
Read Time:4 Minute, 22 Second
HOTJIST NEWS
The Federal High Court in Lagos has released actress Doris Ogala on bail set at N30 million, contingent upon two sureties each pledging the same amount, following allegations of cyberstalking and related offenses involving Pastor Chris Okafor.
Justice Akintayo Aluko, who presided over the bail hearing on Friday, 2026, directed Ogala to deliver her international passport to the court registrar and imposed a restriction preventing her from disseminating electronic communications that could intimidate or harass prosecution witnesses.
In his judgment, the judge emphasized the imperative to strike a delicate equilibrium between the defendant‘s constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty and the dual obligations of safeguarding witnesses and upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
He stated that he had considered all the aforementioned factors with the objective of imposing conditions designed to guarantee the defendant‘s appearance at her trial, while simultaneously safeguarding prosecution witnesses from harassment, threats, or intimidation.
Justice Aluko expressed concern over the defendant’s alleged conduct during proceedings on October 28, 2026, which he said disrupted the court’s sitting and forced an emergency adjournment of 10 cases.
He said, “By her misconduct and conduct in the open court, when she disrupted proceedings and caused a series of adjournments without any justification on the 28th of October, 2026, the defendant has exposed herself as a person capable of fomenting trouble when she is outside the courtroom.”
The judge, however, acknowledged that the defendant had apologised to the court for her conduct.
He remarked that, notwithstanding this, the defendant retains a presumption of innocence as mandated by the Constitution.
In addition, the judge took into account the prosecution‘s apprehensions regarding the potential for Ogala to leverage her social media presence and public online channels to intimidate or harass witnesses.
He asserted that any unjustified electronic dissemination, which possesses the capacity to subject prosecuting witnesses to public harassment, ridicule, threat, or intimidation, and which simultaneously threatens to bring the court proceedings themselves into disrepute and distortion, is accordingly prohibited and restrained.
Justice Aluko additionally mandated that Ogala execute a sworn recognisance, pledging to maintain exemplary conduct and abstain from any impropriety within the courtroom or its adjacent facilities for the duration of the proceedings.
On October 26, 2026, the defendant initiated a bail application, which was formally submitted on October 27 of that year, in accordance with Section 35(5) of the Constitution and Sections 158 and 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
In opposing the application, the prosecution alleged that Ogala deliberately failed to attend previous proceedings on April 23 and June 9, 2026, claiming ill health.
It presented pictorial evidence which it said showed the defendant participating in political activities, public gatherings, campaigns and protests during the period she claimed to be ill.
The prosecution also argued that the allegations against her involved the use of social media to publish and disseminate electronic materials forming part of its evidence, raising concerns about possible interference with witnesses.
The defence maintained that the offences were bailable and that Ogala would not commit another offence, interfere with witnesses or evade trial if granted bail.
The defence attributed her previous absence from court to ill health and urged the judge to grant her bail to enable her to prepare for trial and pursue her governorship ambition.
In resolving the application, Justice Aluko referred to Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which provides for bail except where circumstances exist to justify refusal, including the likelihood of committing another offence, evading trial or interfering with investigations.
The judge also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Suleiman’s case, which outlined the principles guiding the exercise of judicial discretion in bail applications.
He said, “The main function of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused at trial. That is the touchstone of all the criteria.”
Justice Aluko added that the court must exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously, based on the facts and circumstances before it.
He ultimately concluded that the application ought to be approved to serve the interests of justice.
Given these conditions, Ogala is required to furnish two guarantees of equal value.
Among the candidates, at least one must either possess registered property within Lagos State, substantiated by official certification from the Registrar of Deeds for the relevant Land Registry record, or hold the position of a distinguished national officer within their political party, or alternatively, enjoy a stature of significant public repute.
The guarantors are required to be individuals of substantial means, residents within the court‘s jurisdiction, and must undergo verification by the court registrar.
They are also required to submit tax clearance certificates covering the last three years and attach two recent passport photographs each.
The judge additionally mandated that Ogala hand over her international passport to the court registrar.
The directive stipulated that, provided the conditions of bail were strictly adhered to, the defendant‘s release from custody must occur immediately.
Earlier, when the case was called, Doris Ogala was absent, but her lawyer informed the court that she was currently receiving treatment at a hospital.
Ogala’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, told the court, “The defendant is currently receiving treatment at General Hospital in Ajegunle following a gynaecological surgery, which has resulted in bleeding.”
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0