Mountain of Fire Church Files $75,000 Lawsuit Against US-Based Social Media Influencer Funke Ashekun for Allegedly Defamatory Videos

The Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries (MFM) in Nevada, representing its General Overseer, Daniel Olukoya, has filed a lawsuit demanding $75,000 in damages against Mrs. 

Funke Ashekun, a Nigerian social media influencer and YouTuber. The legal action stems from allegations that Ashekun posted defamatory videos and comments that have negatively impacted the reputation of the church and its leadership.

As a former attendee of the MFM headquarters in Lagos State, Ashekun has been accused of engaging in a campaign against Olukoya by disseminating various videos with derogatory content. The church claims that these videos include unfounded accusations, such as claims that the police are under Olukoya's influence, and allegations that Olukoya provided vehicles for police use. In one specific instance mentioned in the lawsuit, Ashekun claimed that her friend Richard had come into possession of a video showing a woman being sexually assaulted by Olukoya in his private room. When Richard allegedly tried to confront Olukoya with the video, Ashekun asserts that Olukoya began targeting Richard in retaliation.

Further, Ashekun is accused of stating in her videos that Olukoya “sold his soul to the devil” and branded him as a “religious scammer.” These serious accusations are part of the basis for the defamation claim, with the church arguing that such statements are not only damaging but entirely baseless, aimed at maligning Olukoya’s and MFM’s credibility and integrity.

The court documents reveal that the church's legal team is requesting the court to enforce a cease and desist on Ashekun’s defamatory postings and to issue both preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent further defamation. The church asserts that the continuation of these allegations causes "immediate, substantial, and irreparable loss" to the organization, impacting its reputation, ministry activities, and financial health.

The plaintiff's argument highlights the imbalance in the consequences of Ashekun’s actions versus the potential harm to her, asserting that while the church suffers significant damage, the defendant herself faces little to no harm by refraining from such defamatory publications. Moreover, the church stresses the broader public interest in protecting religious organizations from unfounded and harmful accusations.

In establishing a prima facie case of defamation, the church's legal filing outlines the necessary elements: the defendant must have made a defamatory communication recognizable to a third party as such, the statement must be demonstrably false, the defendant at fault for its communication, and the plaintiff must have suffered harm as a result.

The lawsuit also emphasizes the broader impact of Ashekun’s statements, noting they have been disseminated across various social media platforms, reaching thousands of subscribers. The church claims that these subscribers often take Ashekun’s allegations at face value, exacerbating the damage done by spreading and endorsing false claims.

As a result of these alleged defamatory activities, MFM claims to have experienced tangible damages including loss of church members, decreased revenue, ongoing legal costs, and a lasting stain on the church’s reputation.

In response to the lawsuit, Ashekun vehemently denied the accusations, arguing that MFM Nevada is merely shielding Olukoya from direct involvement and accountability. She insists that Olukoya should be compelled to appear in court personally to address the allegations, including her claims of him colluding with the police and assaulting a church member. Ashekun argues that as the central figure in the accusations, Olukoya’s direct involvement in the lawsuit is crucial for a transparent legal process.

This legal battle follows a prior judgment by the Baltimore County Circuit Court, which awarded $50,000 in damages against Ashekun for previous defamatory statements against MFM in the United States. The unfolding case continues to attract attention, highlighting the complex interplay between public statements, legal boundaries, and the reputations of public figures and religious institutions.