Fresh details have emerged surrounding the attempted arrest of Nollywood actress Doris Ogala, contradicting her claims that popular cleric Dr. Chris Okafor is behind the move.
Sources familiar with the case revealed that the action against the actress is tied to an ongoing criminal suit filed by the Federal Government of Nigeria at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division.
The matter, listed as Charge No. FHC/L/2/220C/2026 – Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Doris Ogala, is currently before Honourable Justice Aluko.
According to insiders, officers from the Nigerian Police Force, Zone 2 Headquarters in Onikan, Lagos, had reached out to Ogala ahead of her scheduled arraignment on Tuesday, April 14, 2026. She is reportedly on administrative bail.
“The officers only sought to serve the defendant with the charge and ensure her appearance before the court,” a source disclosed.
Court filings indicate that the Federal Government has instituted a four-count charge against the actress under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024. The charges include alleged cyberstalking, dissemination of false information, harassment, and attempted extortion.
Specifically, Ogala is accused of publishing nude and intimate images of the cleric without consent, as well as making serious allegations including rape, ritual practices, and involvement in a death. She is also alleged to have circulated videos and messages aimed at harassing and intimidating him, alongside threats to release further damaging content unless certain demands were met.
However, sources close to the situation insist that Dr. Chris Okafor, General Overseer of Greater Liberation City, is not responsible for initiating or influencing the prosecution.
“Pastor Chris Okafor is not orchestrating this process. He is only the nominal complainant,” the source stated. “The case is strictly a state matter, and the defendant is expected to answer to the allegations in court.”
The source further criticized ongoing public narratives surrounding the case, noting that legal proceedings—not social media—remain the appropriate avenue for resolving such disputes.
The development highlights what observers describe as a state-driven legal process, amid continued public speculation and online controversy.
