Farooq Kperogi’s false claims on Buhari: A moral and legal reckoning, by Bukola Adeyemi

Although Nigeria just witnessed a change of leadership and the passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari, one “columnist” has been busy peddling falsehoods and toxic commentary around these events. Dr. Farooq Kperogi – a professor of journalism turned social media provocateur – recently retracted a blatantly baseless claim about the Buhari family and offered a public apology. As one of the many Nigerians he maligned and insulted for challenging his story, I find his belated mea culpa insufficient. This public statement serves as a strong condemnation of Dr. Kperogi’s erstwhile positions on President Buhari’s death and the false information he spread about the collapse of Buhari’s marriage. It addresses both the moral outrage and potential legal ramifications of his actions.

A Pattern of Sensational Misinformation
Farooq Kperogi is no stranger to controversial claims. For years, he relished his role as one of Buhari’s “fiercest critics,” penning biting columns and social media posts. Even in debunking wild conspiracy theories, he often did so with a poisonous twist. A telling example came in 2018 during the absurd “Jibril from Sudan” rumor (that Buhari had died and been replaced by a double). Kperogi ostensibly dismissed it as “implausible absurdity,” yet mocked Buhari by endorsing a sneer that “he’s not a clone, but a clown.” This blending of fact with ridicule has long characterized Kperogi’s commentary.

In 2025, following Buhari’s death, Kperogi again leaned into sensationalism. He questioned whether Nigerians should “forgive” Buhari or “celebrate his death.” While claiming not to rejoice in anyone’s demise, he suggested that had Buhari died while still in power, public celebration would be “justified.” This reasoning normalized grave-dancing, contradicting basic decency. His selective restraint only masked a deeper vendetta. Even when Kperogi urged against mocking the dead, he still insisted Buhari’s “betrayal” was unforgivable – preaching compassion while promoting condemnation.

The False Divorce Claim: Irresponsible and Hurtful
Kperogi’s most harmful claim came on July 16, 2025, when he posted on Facebook that Aisha Buhari had been “divorced from the late President Muhammadu Buhari before his death.” He cited no official source, only a vague anonymous tip. He pointed to circumstantial claims – like Aisha not traveling to Daura, or hesitating to join Buhari in London – as “evidence.” He implied she returned only after persuasion, and that her mourning was emotionally conflicted. The claim was invasive, poorly sourced, and deeply hurtful to a grieving widow.

This post spread quickly, amplified by social media and some online outlets. Public backlash followed swiftly. Nigerians, myself included, questioned the credibility of his story. Rather than reflect, Kperogi responded with insults, claiming his critics “didn’t pay attention.” He offered no new evidence. His arrogance replaced accountability, while his tone betrayed contempt for those seeking truth over spectacle.

Refutations and Ethical Violations
Soon after, Alhaji Sani Zorro, a former aide to Mrs. Buhari, publicly debunked the divorce claim. Aisha Buhari herself strongly denied it. She had remained married to Buhari until his final breath and had stood by him in his last moments. The public nature of her mourning in Daura, accepting condolences as his widow, contradicted everything Kperogi alleged. His implication that her care was “cosmetic” was both false and cruel.

As a journalism professor, Kperogi should understand his ethical obligations: accuracy, verification, respect for privacy, and fairness. His story failed every one of those standards. Broadcasting an alleged divorce – without documentation, confirmation, or a response from the subject – was reckless. He violated the NUJ Code of Ethics and basic decency by prioritizing sensationalism over fact.

A Hypocrisy Exposed
Just days earlier, Kperogi had written about “compassion” and “solemn reflection” in mourning Buhari. Yet he showed none of that toward Aisha. Instead, he aired false claims about her personal life while she grieved. His apology admitted as much: he called the post “one of the worst and cruelest lapses of judgment I have ever committed.” Yet, even that admission came only after public outcry, not from initial conscience.

Worse still, he insulted critics who pointed out his error. He ridiculed those who asked for proof. Instead of dialogue, he attacked. Instead of caution, he doubled down. This reveals that his goal wasn’t truth-telling, but controlling a narrative. He acted not as a journalist but as a partisan ideologue unwilling to admit fallibility.

Legal Implications: Falsehood Has Consequences
Kperogi’s post could also have triggered legal action. Nigerian law protects reputation, even for public figures. Defamation includes publishing false statements that damage a person’s standing. By claiming Aisha Buhari divorced her husband, he potentially committed libel – suggesting disloyalty or deceit at a deeply sensitive time. The law recognizes the damage such a claim can cause to reputation and family honor.

Moreover, under Islamic law, falsely claiming a woman is divorced is serious and potentially criminal. Kperogi had no proof, yet made a bold, defamatory claim against a Muslim woman married under Islamic rites. In the North, this could amount to “qadhf,” or false accusation – a grave offense in both legal and moral terms. His action wasn’t just careless – it was culturally offensive.

Freedom of Speech Isn’t Freedom from Accountability
Freedom of expression is not license to spread harmful lies. Nigeria’s cybercrime laws and defamation statutes penalize false and malicious publications. Had Aisha Buhari chosen to sue, Kperogi would have had no defense – truth is the only shield in defamation, and he had none. His retraction likely saved him from litigation, but it doesn’t erase the reputational damage he caused.

His actions also violate norms of responsible commentary. Platform holders – especially scholars – have a duty to verify information. His recklessness should be a warning to all public figures: falsehoods have real consequences, and being a “columnist” does not place one above the law.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability
Farooq Kperogi’s conduct in this affair was appalling. He harmed a family in mourning, disrespected the truth, insulted dissenters, and retreated only when cornered. His apology, while necessary, does not erase the damage. He owes the public more than regret – he owes accountability, humility, and a commitment to ethical discourse.

Kperogi chose sensationalism over integrity. He used his platform not to inform, but to provoke. He showed arrogance where empathy was needed, and recklessness where restraint was essential. His actions were not just unethical – they were inhumane. May this serve as a reminder that words matter, and truth is sacred. If he truly wishes to uphold the values he claims to believe in, he must start by honoring the dignity of the people he speaks about – and those he speaks to.

Bukola Adeyemi Oyeniyi (Ph.D.)

Reynolds College, Missouri State University Email: [email protected]