Tension has continued to rise surrounding the ongoing legal and political controversies involving Hon. Abubakar Jibril Giri following explosive allegations that Barrister I.A. Aliyu, counsel to the politician, allegedly made defamatory remarks against CHRONICLES REPORTERS within the premises of High Court No. 39, Gwagwalada, Abuja.
CHRONICLES REPORTERS, an international investigative newspaper organization registered in both the United Kingdom and Nigeria, has strongly denied and condemned the alleged statement credited to Barrister Aliyu claiming that the newspaper and its representatives were allegedly “feasting and dining with Abu Giri.”
The media organization described the statement as false, malicious, reckless, unethical, and deliberately crafted to destroy the credibility, independence, and professional reputation of the newspaper.
According to official correspondence issued by the Legal and Investigative Desk of CHRONICLES REPORTERS, the newspaper stated that multiple credible sources within the court registry and individuals present inside the court premises confirmed that the statement was allegedly made openly in the presence of lawyers and court officials.
The organization maintained that at no point has CHRONICLES REPORTERS entered into any compromise, inducement, secret alliance, or unethical relationship with Hon. Abubakar Jibril Giri or any political actor, insisting that its journalism remains independent, fearless, investigative, and guided strictly by public interest and constitutional press freedom.
The newspaper further accused Barrister Aliyu of attempting to weaponize legal influence and courtroom narratives to undermine media credibility and intimidate investigative journalism.
“Such reckless comments are dangerous attacks against the press and capable of misleading the public into believing that CHRONICLES REPORTERS has abandoned the ethics of independent journalism,” the organization stated.
CHRONICLES REPORTERS also warned that allegations suggesting media compromise are serious reputational attacks capable of exposing a newspaper to public distrust, institutional embarrassment, professional damages, and economic consequences both locally and internationally.
The organization cited Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, emphasizing that the Nigerian press possesses constitutional protection against intimidation, malicious falsehood, and coordinated attacks designed to weaken public confidence in independent media institutions.
The paper further referenced provisions under Nigerian defamation law and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, arguing that lawyers are expected to uphold integrity, dignity, fairness, and professional discipline both inside and outside the courtroom.
Sources close to the matter revealed that CHRONICLES REPORTERS has now issued a formal seven-day ultimatum demanding a complete retraction, public apology, clarification, and credible evidence supporting the alleged statement should Barrister Aliyu insist on its authenticity.
The newspaper warned that failure to comply could trigger multiple legal and institutional actions, including defamation proceedings, petitions before the Nigerian Bar Association Disciplinary Committee, international media exposure, and investigative publications surrounding the incident.
Observers within legal and media circles say the controversy may escalate into a wider debate about press freedom, courtroom ethics, abuse of professional influence, and the growing tension between investigative journalism and politically exposed individuals in Nigeria.
As of the time of filing this report, Barrister I.A. Aliyu had not publicly responded to the allegations or the formal demand issued by CHRONICLES REPORTERS.