**Former AGF Adoke Eats His Words: Court Dismisses Libel Suit Against Him** In a recent twist in the ongoing OPL 245 saga, a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has dismissed a libel suit filed by Olanrewaju Suraju, chairman of the HEDA Resource Centre, against Mohammed Bello Adoke, a former Attorney-General of the Federation. The saga began when Mr Suraju accused Mr Adoke of defaming him in a petition sent to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) in 2021. The petition alleged that Mr Suraju was involved in the forgery of an email and stage-managing of a phone conversation aimed at implicating Mr Adoke in the OPL 245 criminal trial in Italy and civil proceedings in the United Kingdom. Mr Adoke, who was undergoing prosecution in Nigeria over his alleged roles in the OPL 245 saga, denied the allegations. Mr Suraju demanded N100 million in damages as compensation for alleged defamation by Mr Adoke. However, in a surprising turn of events, the court dismissed the suit on the grounds that Mr Suraju failed to prove his case. The judge held that Mr Adoke's petition, which Mr Suraju anchored his libel case on, did not contain his name and therefore could not have defamed him. The court also ruled that sending a petition to the police could not in itself constitute defamation, as it is the right of a citizen to do so. Furthermore, the court found that a copy of the PREMIUM TIMES webpage presented by Mr Suraju as proof of publication by Mr Adoke was unreliable. The judge agreed with Mr Adoke's decision not to enter a defence, stating that Mr Suraju's case failed to meet the fundamental requirements of a libel suit. This dismissal is the latest development in a web of cases related to the OPL 245 saga. For years, Nigeria has been embroiled in civil and criminal cases in the UK, Italy, and the US in a bid to bring alleged fraudsters to book. The saga has seen several high-profile figures, including former government officials, face trial over their alleged involvement in the scandal. The implications of this dismissal are significant, as it raises questions about the credibility of Mr Suraju's claims and the motives behind his libel suit. While Mr Suraju maintains that he was defamed by Mr Adoke, the court's decision has dealt a blow to his case