• Denies authorising lawyer to discontinue Federal High Court case
• Gives counsel 72 hours to clarify alleged consent
By Our Correspondent
Otunba Dr. Oluwafemi Soluade, a party to a suit challenging the eligibility of Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, has demanded clarification over reports that the case was withdrawn or discontinued with his consent.
Soluade, in a statement issued in Abeokuta on Friday, October 2, 2026, said he neither instructed his counsel, Mr. Anderson Asemota, Esq., to withdraw the suit nor gave consent for its discontinuance.
He said he was informed that when the matter came up before the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, on September 29, his counsel allegedly told the court that he had obtained Soluade’s consent to withdraw the case.
“I DID NOT INSTRUCT MY LAWYER TO WITHDRAW OR DISCONTINUE THIS SUIT,” Soluade declared.
He said he had been under the weather for about two months and had limited communication concerning the matter, adding that he had no conversation with his lawyer that amounted to an instruction to discontinue the suit.
Soluade is therefore demanding verifiable evidence of the alleged authorisation, including any written or electronic communication, details of the alleged telephone conversation, relevant court processes and the official record of the September 29 proceedings.
He said any representation made to the court on his behalf should be capable of verification, insisting that the issue should be resolved through evidence and the court record rather than rumours or political claims.
Soluade also cited relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, in support of his call for transparency and clarification.
He subsequently gave Asemota 72 hours to provide an explanation and documentary evidence concerning the alleged consent.
“This is not a declaration of guilt against any individual. It is a demand for facts, evidence and accountability,” he said.
Soluade added that if satisfactory clarification was not provided, he reserved his rights to approach appropriate judicial, professional, regulatory and law-enforcement authorities for independent examination, where appropriate.
He urged the media, political stakeholders and the public to distinguish between verified court records, allegations and established facts.
The claimant maintained that the central question was whether he authorised the withdrawal or discontinuance of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2026.
“Let the evidence speak. Let the court record speak. Let the law take its course,” he said.
