Former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai (retd.), has filed a N1 billion defamation suit against retired Maj. Gen. Danjuma Ali-Keffi before the Kaduna State High Court.
The suit, filed on January 8, 2026, at the Kaduna Judicial Division, stems from statements Ali-Keffi allegedly made linking Buratai to terrorism financing, Boko Haram suspects, and the illegal release and concealment of terror suspects.
Through his lawyers, A.I. Aliyu and A.M. Hassan of Law Plus Consult, Buratai is seeking a declaration that the statements attributed to Ali-Keffi and published on platforms including Sahara Reporters, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp, Instagram, and other media outlets, are false and defamatory.
Court documents show that Buratai contends Ali-Keffi gave interviews in 2025 insinuating his involvement in conspiracies to cover up terrorism-related activities during his tenure as Chief of Army Staff.
The former army chief argued that the publications, which circulated widely online, portrayed him as corrupt, unpatriotic, and complicit in acts against Nigeria’s national security, gravely damaging his reputation both locally and internationally.
Buratai maintains he has never been investigated, indicted, or convicted for terrorism, terrorism financing, or related offences.
He also alleged that Ali-Keffi acted recklessly and maliciously despite admitting in the same publications that no investigation had established Buratai’s involvement.
The former army chief is asking the court to order Ali-Keffi to retract the statements and issue a public apology with equal prominence in Sahara Reporters, two national newspapers, and across all social media platforms where the claims were circulated.
In addition, Buratai is seeking N1 billion in general damages for libel and injury to reputation, a perpetual injunction to restrain Ali-Keffi from repeating the allegations, and an order compelling him to pay the full cost of the suit, including legal fees.
Ali-Keffi has been directed to enter an appearance within 21 days of service, failing which the court may proceed in his absence. No hearing date has been fixed, and the defendant has not yet responded to the suit.
