A United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by former Nigerian Ambassador Lilian Onoh against SaharaReporters Media Group Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer, ruling that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on June 4, 2026, Judge Mark T. Pittman granted SaharaReporters’ motion to dismiss, holding that the media organization had not purposefully directed its activities toward Texas and therefore could not be sued there.
The lawsuit stemmed from a series of SaharaReporters investigations concerning Onoh’s tenure as a Nigerian ambassador and diplomat.
Onoh alleged that the reports defamed her and caused reputational harm in Texas, where she has resided since 2021.
However, the court found that SaharaReporters’ reporting focused on allegations concerning Onoh’s conduct in Nigeria, not on Texas or Texas residents.
Judge Pittman ruled that references to Texas in some of the reports were merely incidental and resulted from Onoh’s own relocation to Texas and her decision to file legal proceedings there.
“The focal point remains on Nigeria and the alleged actions of a former Nigerian ambassador and diplomat,” the court held, noting that the alleged conduct, reporting, and any resulting reputational harm were centred in Nigeria rather than Texas.
The court acknowledged that SaharaReporters operates a website that allows limited user interaction through story submissions, donations, and advertising inquiries.
However, it concluded that these features did not establish sufficient contacts with Texas to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Relying on established Fifth Circuit precedents, including Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com and Revell v. Lidov, the court held that the mere fact that Texas residents can access SaharaReporters’ website does not mean the publication is subject to suit in Texas.
The judge also rejected Onoh’s argument that SaharaReporters specifically targeted Texas because of its large Nigerian and diplomatic communities, finding no evidence that the publication solicited Texas readers or directed its reporting toward the state.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning Onoh remains free to pursue her claims in another jurisdiction if she chooses.
The latest ruling comes after another setback for Onoh in January 2025, when the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismissed an earlier lawsuit she filed against SaharaReporters Media Group Inc., SaharaReporters Inc., and its founder, Omoyele Sowore, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In the initial case, Judge Jane J. Boyle granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequently dismissed Onoh’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that a final judgment will follow.
The court determined that it was not allowed to hear the case due to the foreign citizenship of both Ms. Onoh and Sowore.
Unsatisfied with that outcome, Onoh, whose sister is Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, subsequently initiated a fresh lawsuit against SaharaReporters.
That second lawsuit has now also been dismissed, with the court holding that Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
The ruling marks another courtroom victory for SaharaReporters and its founder, Sowore, in litigation arising from the organization’s investigative reporting on public officials and matters of public interest.
Backstory
On September 22, 2021, SaharaReporters reported that a seven‑member committee indicted former Nigerian Ambassador to Namibia, Onoh, for alleged financial misappropriation.
The panel, chaired by Ambassador Gabriel Aduda, accused her of diverting mission funds and recommended refunds totaling tens of thousands of dollars and several naira amounts. The probe was reportedly initiated by then‑Minister Geoffrey Onyeama after Onoh herself raised corruption allegations against mission officials.
Attempts to Undermine the Probe
Sources alleged that Onoh tried to suppress the committee’s findings, lobbying for leniency and resorting to blackmail when rebuffed.
She filed a petition against Onyeama, copied to then‑President Muhammadu Buhari, but the Presidency upheld the committee’s recommendations. Onoh later leaked her petition to the media, allegedly as part of a smear campaign.
Controversial Career
Reports claimed Onoh had a history of strained relations with host countries, being described as combative and confrontational. Though once dismissed from service, her removal was reversed, reportedly due to her family’s political influence.
Onoh’s Reaction
Onoh demanded SaharaReporters retract the story and issue a public apology within 48 hours, threatening legal action. Through her lawyers, she denied the allegations, insisted her entitlements were legitimate, and challenged SaharaReporters to produce the committee’s certified report.
Her legal team warned of a ₦5 billion defamation suit if the demands were not met.
Onoh Sues SaharaReporters
In November 2024, Onoh filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Sahara Reporters Media Group Inc., Sahara Reporters Inc., and Sowore.
US Court Dismisses Case
On January 13, 2025, Judge Jane Boyle dismissed the case, ruling that Onoh failed to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction. The court noted that the alleged conduct, reporting, and reputational harm were centered in Nigeria, not Texas.
“Onoh asserts state-law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. Onoh alleges that Sahara Reporters Media Group, Inc. and Sahara Reporters, Inc. are citizens of New York and Sowore ‘is an individual residing in’ New Jersey. Onoh is a Nigerian citizen who ‘resides in’ Texas,” the court document read.
The case was robustly defended by a global law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, with Doug Brown as the lead lawyer.
Responding, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
Considering their Motion, the presiding Judge held that, “Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is limited; federal courts may entertain only those cases involving a question of federal law or those where the parties are of diverse citizenship,” and consequently dismissed the suit.
(SaharaReporters)
