Fuji star Osupa has withdrawn his defamation case against Portable after interventions from notable figures, opting for an out-of-court settlement
[dropcap]F[/dropcap]uji music icon, Okunola Saheed, popularly known as Osupa, has officially withdrawn his legal case against controversial singer, Badmus Okikiola, widely recognised as Portable.
Also read: Portable remanded: bail conditions unmet, defamation case continues
Osupa’s legal representative, Ahmed Opalekunde, confirmed the filing for the case’s withdrawal at the Upper Area Court 1, High Court, Ilorin on Tuesday.
This development follows the arraignment of Portable by the Kwara State Police Command on Monday, subsequent to a formal petition lodged by Osupa.
In his complaint to the police, Osupa had accused Portable of criminal defamation, criminal intimidation, inciting public disturbance, and cyberstalking.
The alleged offences were cited as being contrary to and punishable under several sections of the Penal Code (Section 392 for Criminal Defamation, Section 114 for Inciting Disturbance, and Section 397 for Criminal Intimidation), Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015, as well as Sections 10 and 13 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Law, 2020.
Osupa’s solicitor, Mr Opalekunde, stated that his client had instructed him to withdraw the case following the intervention and earnest pleas from prominent stakeholders within the music industry and other notable figures in society. He indicated that Osupa had decided to pursue an out-of-court settlement with Portable.
The formal letter of withdrawal, however, included a stern warning from Osupa, demanding that Portable refrain from any further publications or utterances that could disparage his person or businesses.
The withdrawal letter explicitly stated, “It’s our client’s (nominal complainant) instruction that the stakeholders in the music industry and other notable personalities in the society have intervened in the matter and pleaded to the nominal complainant to withdraw the case against the defendant in the interest of public peace.
We hereby on behalf of our client apply to withdraw the case against the defendant and terminate same accordingly as the matter had been resolved amicably.
Further, sir, we want to pray the court to admonish and warn the defendant to desist from any further publications, utterances and any other acts aiming at disparaging the person and businesses of the nominal complainant.”
It will be recalled that Osupa’s initial allegations included claims that Portable had made a live stream video containing abusive content directed at him.
Furthermore, Osupa alleged that Portable had damaged his reputation by falsely claiming that Osupa had orchestrated the removal of his music from popular streaming platforms Apple Music and Spotify, thereby depriving him of potential income.
The complainant also accused Portable of using a live stream to malign his character by falsely asserting to have removed Osupa’s music from these platforms, thus harming his reputation and potential earnings.
The petition detailed an Instagram live broadcast on March 19, 2025, during which Portable allegedly made defamatory remarks against Osupa, accusing him of jealousy and attempts to sabotage his burgeoning career.
In the widely circulated video, Portable was quoted as saying, “This man dey try to bring down my shine! He be like person wey dey chop snail with shell—him no get sense. Osupa na tortoise.
When Apple Music and Spotify wan drop money for me, na him remove my song from platform make I no see money.”
Osupa described these statements as damaging, inciting, and a direct attack on his reputation, further claiming that the content had incited public tension and unrest.
It is also pertinent to recall that Chief Magistrate Sunday Adeniyi had ruled on Monday to grant Portable bail in the sum of N1 million, with two sureties required.
Also read: Portable granted ₦1 million bail, faces defamation charges
One surety was mandated to be the chairman of the Performing Musician Association of Nigeria, while the other was required to own landed property within the Government Reserve Area under the court’s jurisdiction.
