By Our Reporter with agency report

Nollywood actress Doris Ogala on Friday apologised to a Federal High Court in Lagos after kneeling before the judge over her conduct during an earlier court sitting.

Despite her apology, the actress was returned to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre after Justice Akintayo Aluko adjourned ruling on her bail application until November 6, 2026.

Ogala, who is facing charges bordering on alleged cyberstalking, cyberbullying and attempted extortion involving Pastor Chris Okafor, expressed regret over her behaviour during Wednesday’s proceedings and assured the court that she would not repeat it.

Appearing before Justice Aluko, the actress pleaded for forgiveness, saying her detention was an experience she had never anticipated.

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 came after the judge criticised her conduct at the previous sitting, when she was allegedly heard shouting and singing inside the courtroom, forcing the court to suspend proceedings.

Justice Aluko said the disruption prevented the court from attending to more than seven other cases scheduled for hearing that day.

The judge disclosed that he had considered committing Ogala for contempt but decided against taking that step, despite describing her conduct as deserving of 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 observed that the actress could have faced 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 questioned why the defence lawyer failed to address the incident and explain his client’s behaviour before proceeding with arguments on the bail application.

The judge recalled that he had directed an accelerated hearing of the bail request and made arrangements for it to be considered within 48 hours.

He said he was disappointed that the courtroom disruption occurred despite the court’s efforts to expedite the matter.

Ogala’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, also apologised on behalf of his client, describing the incident as unfortunate and assuring the court that such behaviour was not typical of her.

Abubakar said he had known the actress for some time and was surprised by her conduct.

Following the apologies, the court heard arguments from both the defence and prosecution on the bail application.

Abubakar urged the court to grant his client bail, arguing that the prosecution had, through its counter-affidavit, indicated willingness to release her subject to certain conditions.

He maintained that the prosecution’s position suggested it was not opposed to bail but was concerned about the terms under which the actress would be released.

The defence lawyer argued that once the prosecution acknowledged that a defendant could be admitted to bail, the court should exercise its discretion by imposing reasonable conditions.

He urged the judge to avoid conditions that could unnecessarily restrict Ogala’s liberty, citing relevant judicial authorities and legal provisions to support his position.

However, the prosecution counsel, Tolulope Mokolu, asked the court to impose stringent bail conditions, citing concerns about the actress’s social media activities.

Mokolu argued that Ogala’s continued use of social media could expose witnesses to undue influence and interfere with the administration of justice.

Although acknowledging her constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, the prosecution maintained that those rights were not absolute.

It therefore urged the court to restrict her access to witnesses and their addresses and prohibit social media publications capable of influencing witnesses or compromising the proceedings.

The prosecution also requested appropriate sanctions should the actress violate any of the proposed bail conditions.

After listening to both parties, Justice Aluko fixed November 6, 2026, for ruling on the bail application. Ogala was subsequently returned to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre pending the court’s decision.

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.

According to the prosecution, the alleged offences were committed between September 2024 and March 2026.

Mokolu told the court that Ogala allegedly shared nude and intimate photographs of Okafor on her social media accounts without his consent, exposing him to embarrassment, emotional distress and reputational damage.

The actress, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Meanwhile, Abubakar has indicated plans to petition the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, seeking the withdrawal of the charges against his client.

The lawyer, who spoke after Friday’s proceedings, described the case as a private dispute arising from a failed relationship and argued that the criminal prosecution violated Ogala’s fundamental rights.

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.”

He argued that the government should not ordinarily intervene in private disagreements of that nature, insisting that citizens 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 argued that individuals who believed their reputations had been damaged by defamatory statements should seek remedies through civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution.

He maintained that democratic societies must accommodate criticism and dissent, even when such 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 also condemned the use of law enforcement agencies to arrest individuals over alleged insults or criticism, arguing that such practices were inconsistent with democratic principles.

He called for the removal of provisions of the Cybercrimes Act which, in his view, criminalise freedom of expression.

Recalling legal challenges instituted in 2022 against provisions of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, particularly Section 24, Abubakar said two separate court judgments had declared aspects of the provision unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

He noted that the National Assembly subsequently amended the Act in 2024 to address concerns over the criminalisation of free speech.

However, he alleged that security agencies had continued to enforce the law without adequately taking the amendments into account.

The lawyer further accused some influential individuals and public officials of deploying law enforcement agencies to intimidate critics, warning that such actions threatened 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, Abubakar said he planned to write directly to the Attorney-General, urging him to intervene and discontinue the case.

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 move would be pursued in the interest of justice, maintaining that the disagreement should not have resulted in criminal charges against a Nigerian citizen.

(PUNCH)