Mayowa Lambe Issues Cease-and-Desist to Roby Ekpo Amid Explosive Marriage Dispute

Mayowa Lambe has served a cease-and-desist notice on her ex-husband, Roby Ekpo, following his public comments about their relationship and her recent remarriage abroad.

The dispute intensified after Ekpo appeared on the Honest Bunch podcast, where he broke down emotionally while recounting his version of events. He claimed that Mayowa remarried without an official divorce and accused her of deception during their 11-year relationship, including allegations surrounding contraception and financial support.

Ekpo also stated that he had been sending money to her, unaware that she was allegedly living with another man. His emotional interview quickly gained traction online, drawing mixed reactions—some sympathizing with him, while others called for caution and demanded Mayowa’s side of the story.

In response, Mayowa, through her lawyer Chinedu Nwaneli, issued a formal cease-and-desist letter. The notice demands that Ekpo retract his statements, remove related posts, issue a public apology, and pay ₦100 million in damages for alleged defamation within 48 hours or face legal action.

Her legal team firmly denied Ekpo’s claims, stating that there is no existing marital relationship and that verifiable evidence contradicts his narrative.

Opinion: A Private Breakdown Turned Public Trial

What stands out in this situation is how quickly a deeply personal issue has turned into a public spectacle.

Ekpo’s emotional interview struck a chord with many people—it felt raw, personal, and relatable. But emotion alone doesn’t determine truth, especially in matters that involve legal definitions like marriage and divorce.

On the other side, Mayowa’s legal response shows how seriously reputational damage is taken in today’s digital age. Once allegations go public, the consequences can be immediate and far-reaching, regardless of whether they are proven.

The bigger concern here is how social media has become a courtroom of its own. People are forming opinions, taking sides, and passing judgment based on incomplete information.

At the heart of it all is a dispute that likely requires legal clarity, not public debate. Until facts are fully established in the appropriate forum, both narratives remain claims—not conclusions.

This case is a reminder that while the internet amplifies voices, it doesn’t replace due process.