Human Rights Lawyer Marshal Abubakar Dismisses Tracy Ohiri’s Allegations As Misleading; Reveals $70,000 Goodwill Payment In Failed Mediation Efforts

Human rights lawyer Marshal Abubakar clarifies the Tracy Ohiri case, revealing a $70,000 goodwill payment and the lack of evidence in her claims against David Umahi.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 21, 2026, 12:14 PM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from Independent

Defending the Right to Free Speech

In a formal statement released on Saturday, March 21, 2026, Nigerian human rights lawyer Marshal Abubakar addressed the escalating controversy surrounding his former client, Ms. Tracy Ohiri. Abubakar emphasized that his initial involvement was rooted in constitutional advocacy, noting that he mobilized high-profile figures—including Senator Ireti Kingibe and activist Omoyele Sowore—to protect Ohiri from unlawful detention. He maintained that these legal and civic interventions were successful in securing her bail and upholding her fundamental right to free speech.

The Evidence Gap in the Umahi Allegations

The conflict shifted during subsequent mediation efforts intended to resolve Ohiri’s claims against David Umahi. According to Abubakar, the legal team conducted a thorough review of the case but discovered "significant gaps" in the narrative. Specifically, Ohiri was reportedly unable to produce any verifiable evidence of a contractual relationship or proof of service delivery involving the Minister. Despite multiple opportunities to substantiate her claims, the lawyer stated that no documentation was ever presented to back the public allegations.

A $70,000 Goodwill Gesture

In an effort to reach an amicable settlement and de-escalate the public friction, a peace arrangement was facilitated. Abubakar revealed that as part of this resolution, a sum of $70,000 was transferred to Ms. Ohiri. He was careful to clarify that this sum was strictly a "goodwill gesture" and did not constitute an admission of liability or formal compensation by any involved party. Furthermore, the lawyer stated that he derived no personal financial benefit from the transaction, acting solely as a facilitator for a peaceful resolution.