Gospel Singer Tope Alabi Threatens Legal Action Against Canada-Based Pastor Over Defamatory Murder Allegations
Gospel singer Tope Alabi has threatened legal action against a Canada-based pastor, Tayo Kumuyi, popularly associated with Pastor Tayo Ministries, over allegations linking her to the death of gospel minister Toluwanisings and other ministers. Her lawyers have issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding the removal of the publications, a public retraction and an apology, raising fresh questions about the legal consequences of making serious allegations against public figures on social media.
The development follows a cease-and-desist letter dated October 24, 2026, issued by Oakmount Legal Practitioners on behalf of Alabi. The letter, titled “Cease and Desist: Malicious and Defamatory Publications and Threats Against Our Client”, accused the operators of the Pastor Tayo Ministries Facebook page of publishing statements that allegedly associated the singer with murder and ritual killing.
According to the solicitors, the disputed publications appeared between October 20 and 24 and included allegations linking Alabi to the deaths of several gospel ministers.
The lawyers strongly rejected the accusations, describing them as false and unsupported by evidence. In the letter, they stated, “These statements accuse our client of murder and of ritual killing. There is no more serious allegation that can be made against a person, least of all a minister of the gospel. They are false in every particular.”
They also challenged the publisher to produce evidence supporting the allegations, arguing that no investigation, police finding or court decision substantiated the claims.
The letter further stated that Alabi had mourned Toluwanisings following his death and had no involvement in his death or that of any other person.
Toluwanisings, whose real name was Olayemi Bayonile Bolaji, died on October 14, 2026, at the age of 41. His death prompted tributes from members of the gospel music community, including Alabi, who had publicly expressed shock and sadness over the loss.
The controversy has since moved beyond discussions surrounding the late singer’s death to a legal dispute over the publication and circulation of allegations against Alabi.
The solicitors also cited a statement allegedly directed at the singer after she issued an earlier public notice warning against defamatory publications on October 23. Quoting the post, they wrote, “Tope Alabi, no letter will save you from my hand. Your only option is leaving your hiding place.”
Alabi’s lawyers characterised the statement as a threat and said subsequent publications would be relied upon as evidence of what they described as malice and an intention to continue the alleged defamation.
The legal notice demands that the disputed posts be removed from public view and that the page operators stop publishing or circulating the allegations. It also requires them to withdraw requests encouraging other users to share the material and refrain from further statements considered threatening or harassing.
Beyond removing the publications, the lawyers are demanding an unreserved retraction and public apology on the same Facebook page. They want the apology to remain pinned for 14 consecutive days and receive prominence reasonably equivalent to that given to the original allegations.
The solicitors have also requested that the recipient identify the factual basis and supporting material for any allegations they intend to maintain. They further asked whether the claims had been reported to the Nigeria Police Force or another competent authority.
The letter gives the recipient 24 hours to comply with the demands, warning that failure to do so could lead to court proceedings.
Among the possible remedies outlined are declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, legal costs and applications for interim court orders where legally justified. The lawyers also reserved the right to lodge complaints with Meta Platforms and refer the alleged threats to law enforcement.
The dispute highlights the legal risks associated with using social media to make allegations that could damage another person’s reputation. In particular, accusations of murder or ritual killing go beyond ordinary criticism or disagreement because they attribute serious criminal conduct to an identifiable individual.
Under defamation law, the legal assessment of a publication generally depends on factors including the words used, their meaning, the circumstances in which they were communicated, their effect on the person’s reputation and any applicable legal defences. A claimant would ordinarily need to establish the elements required under the applicable law rather than rely solely on the fact that a statement caused offence or attracted public attention.
The distinction is important because public figures are not automatically without legal protection against defamatory statements. At the same time, the law does not ordinarily prohibit all criticism, commentary or discussion of matters of public interest. Whether a particular publication crosses the legal threshold depends on its content, context and the applicable legal principles.
Alabi’s lawyers specifically addressed the argument that the allegations were presented as spiritual revelations or religious opinions. They stated, “The fact that the statements are presented as spiritual revelations or religious opinions does not, without more, exempt their publication from the ordinary requirements of the law.”
The position raises an important question about the boundaries between religious expression and allegations of criminal conduct. A person may express religious beliefs or offer commentary on public events, but describing an identifiable individual as responsible for murder is a materially different matter from expressing a theological opinion. The label attached to a statement does not, by itself, determine whether it is legally protected.
The case also draws attention to the potential responsibility of people who redistribute allegations originally published by someone else. In an earlier public notice issued on October 23, Alabi’s solicitors warned that liability could, depending on the circumstances and applicable defences, extend beyond the original publisher to people who repeat, repost, forward or otherwise amplify defamatory material.
This warning is particularly relevant in the social media environment, where allegations can spread rapidly through reposts, screenshots, videos and messages shared across multiple platforms. Users who did not originate a claim should not automatically assume that circulating it carries no legal risk.
However, sharing a publication does not automatically establish liability in every case. The circumstances of the republication, the content involved and any applicable legal defences would still have to be considered.
The solicitors also addressed the fact that the recipient is reportedly based in Canada. They argued that publishing the allegations from outside Nigeria did not necessarily prevent legal action, particularly because the statements were allegedly directed at a Nigerian audience and were capable of affecting Alabi’s reputation where she lives and works.
Any proceedings involving a person residing abroad could raise additional questions about jurisdiction, service of court processes and the enforcement of any eventual judgment. The fact that content can be accessed in Nigeria does not, by itself, resolve every jurisdictional question, but an overseas location does not automatically eliminate potential legal exposure either.
Another important aspect of the letter is its demand that relevant evidence be preserved. The solicitors instructed the recipient to retain publications, recordings, messages, drafts and available account records, warning that removing material from public view should not involve destroying or altering evidence.
Such a demand reflects the importance of digital evidence in disputes involving online publications. Posts can be deleted, edited or moved between platforms, making it important for parties to preserve relevant material where litigation is reasonably anticipated. The evidence may help establish what was published, when it appeared, who was responsible and how the material was circulated.
The solicitors nevertheless clarified that their demands were not intended to prevent legitimate journalism, lawful investigations or protected commentary. The letter stated, “Nothing in this letter is intended to prevent truthful reporting, lawful investigation or legitimate commentary protected by law.”
That qualification is significant because the legal response to disputed online claims must also recognise the importance of freedom of expression. Allegations involving public figures and matters attracting public interest may be discussed, but responsible reporting requires a distinction between verified information, opinion and unsubstantiated accusations presented as fact.
For Alabi, the threatened action represents an attempt to protect her personal reputation, professional standing and ministry from allegations her lawyers consider seriously damaging. For social media users, the dispute serves as a reminder that online platforms do not place every publication beyond the reach of the law.
The case has not yet resulted in a reported court judgment on the disputed allegations. The demands currently described are contained in a letter from Alabi’s solicitors, and the allegations against the singer have not been established as facts by a court.
Whether the dispute proceeds to litigation will depend, in part, on the recipient’s response to the ultimatum and any subsequent decisions by the parties. For now, the central issue is whether the disputed publications will be withdrawn and an apology issued or whether Alabi will pursue the legal remedies her lawyers have outlined.
