Plaude demands takedown, apology over $4.2m cross-border transaction report

Plaude Technologies Limited and its Director, Mr. Olatomiwa Idowu, have demanded the immediate removal, retraction and public apology over a Technext report concerning an alleged $4.2 million cross-border transaction, threatening to institute a N500 million libel action if the demands are not met within 48 hours.

The demand was contained in a letter dated August 18, 2026, by Adejumo & Ekisola, legal practitioners to Plaude and Idowu, and signed by Olumide Ekisola, SAN.

The lawyers were responding to a Technext publication titled, “EXCLUSIVE: What happened to $4.2 million in a cross-border transaction involving Plaude Technologies?” authored by Omoleye Omoruyi.

They also referred to what they described as substantially similar allegations subsequently published on social media by Technext and journalist David Afolayan under the headline: “How Plaude Technologies and Director Olatomiwa Idowu allegedly vanished with $4.2m cross-border transaction balance.”

The lawyers described the publications as false, misleading and defamatory, insisting that their clients had previously responded to Technext’s request for comments on the allegations.

According to the letter, Plaude and Idowu, through counsel, responded to the request in a Cease and Desist Notice dated April 11, 2026.

The lawyers said their clients had explained that the matter was under investigation and that, in the circumstances, they did not wish to make further substantive comments that could prejudice or pre-empt the process.

They added that their clients had expressly warned against the publication of comments, reports or representations capable of distorting the facts or prejudging the matter.

The legal team, therefore, faulted the subsequent publication for allegedly suggesting, expressly or by implication, that Plaude and Idowu had failed, refused or neglected to respond to Technext’s enquiries.
“That representation is false,” the lawyers stated, insisting that Technext was already in possession of their clients’ position before publishing the report.
They further criticised the manner in which the allegations were presented, arguing that the report created the impression that their clients had already been found culpable.
“It is improper and legally prejudicial for your publication to present the facts in a manner calculated to create the impression that our clients have been found culpable, when it is not so.
“An investigation is not a conviction. A complaint is not proof of guilt. An allegation does not constitute a finding of fact.”
According to the lawyers, the publication gave the ordinary reader the impression that their clients had committed financial crimes and deliberately disappeared with funds belonging to another party while evading investigation and arrest.
They argued that the portrayal was capable of causing serious and substantial damage to their clients’ reputations, businesses, commercial relationships and standing before the public and international business community.
The lawyers also challenged the report’s assertion that Idowu was “believed to be in the United States” and that an arrest warrant allegedly issued by a Nigerian Federal High Court “cannot reach him.”
They described the assertion as “grossly misleading,” maintaining that Idowu had always been a United States-based businessman.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Idowu has always been a United States-based businessman and his presence in the United States is neither a recent development nor evidence that he is evading any lawful process or authority,” the lawyers stated.
They insisted that Idowu was not “on the run,” was not a fugitive and had not absconded from Nigeria as a consequence of the matter.
The lawyers argued that juxtaposing his legitimate residence and business activities in the United States with the alleged inability of a Nigerian arrest warrant to “reach him” was calculated to portray him as a fugitive from justice.
“That portrayal is false, malicious and defamatory,” they stated.
The legal team also invoked the presumption of innocence, stressing that, notwithstanding investigations reportedly being conducted by law-enforcement agencies, their clients were entitled to have any allegations against them determined strictly in accordance with due process and the law.