Court rejects ex-minister Turaki’s prayer in paternity dispute case

The FCT High Court denied the plea of Former Minister of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs Kabiru Turaki on Tuesday.

Turaki applied to prevent a woman named Uwani Arabi and two others from publishing any further information about their paternity issue.

However, Justice Aliyu Shafa denied the application because the ex-minister requested a similar prayer in the main suit.

The judge then granted an order for an accelerated hearing in the substantive suit and delayed the case until November 13 for a definite hearing.

Turaki claimed in the main complaint that Arabi, her ex-husband Musa Baffa, and her daughter Hadiza had defamed him.

The ex-minister alleged that the defendants raised allegations of sexual impropriety against him to the extent of claiming he fathered a child through Hadiza.

In a supporting affidavit, Turaki stated that the interim restraining order was necessary to stop the defendants from further spreading false information against him during the pendency of the substantive suit.

Turaki, who is claiming damages in several millions of naira against the defendants, said he was a benefactor to Arabi and Hadiza because he took responsibility of paying her fees while she schooled in Baze University, Abuja and assisted her mother too financially.

He denied allegations of sexual impropriety allegedly raised against him by the defendants, stating that he only fell out with the mother and daughter because he stopped Hadiza from further visiting him when her alleged criminal acts became unbearable for him.

In their joint statement of defence, the defendants denied defaming the ex-minister, insisting that he was the one who volunteered to sponsor Hadiza’s university education.

They also denied that Hadiza was involved in some criminal acts, alleging that the former minister took advantage of her by sleeping with her until she became pregnant.

The defendants stated that “none of them made slanderous allegation or defamed the character of the claimant but rather, it was the claimant that slandered and defamed the reputable name of their family by breaching the trust of their family.”

They claimed that the claimant “is frustrating investigation into the matter, more especially when it came to his knowledge that the only way to know the truth of the matter is by conducting DNA test.”