Actress Peggy Ovire Reacts To Colleague Taye Arimoro's Letter Demanding Apology And Compensation

The heated disagreement between Nollywood actors, Taye Arimoro and Peggy Ovire, has now turned into a full-blown legal battle. 

The issues began Peggy's movie set earlier this month. Taye claims Peggy and her team attacked him when he tried to leave after his work hours, leaving him with a damaged tooth and bruises. He posted a video online and demanded a public apology and 100 million Naira compensation through his lawyers on November 18,2025.

On Tuesday November 25, 2025 Peggy posted her response via Her lawyers letter...

The letter says Taye started the fight by attacking her production manager and driver and that she has witness statements, medical reports, and police records to support her side. 

Peggy also threatened to sue Taye for lying and is waiting for the police and Actors’ Guild of Nigeria (AGN) to finish their investigation

She attached the letter from her Lawyers and wrote;

"Until the police investigation is

Concluded, let it be clear that my Silence Should not be mistaken for Cowardice."

Her Lawyers end her reaction letter by saying Peggy will not apologise or pay the N100 million compensation...

''For the avoidance of doubt no apology will be issued to your client and no compensation whatsoever will be paid. Our client rejects your claims in their entirety. We await the conclusion of the ongoing police investigation, which we are certain will expose the falsehood of your client's''

**************

Attention: Inibehe Effiong, Esq.

Dear Gentlemen,
RE: OUR CLIENT'S RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF DEMAND ON BEHALF OF MR.
TAIWO ARIMORO (aka "TAYE").

We act as Solicitors to Peggy Ovire ("our client", who has instructed us regarding your letter dated 18" November 2025 issued on behaif of Mr. Taiwo Arimoro aka "Taye" ("your client"). alleging violations of his fundamental rights and demanding an apology and A 100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) compensation.

Having thoroughly examined the contents of yeur letter vis-a-vis our brief, we respond as follows:

1. Your Client's Allegations Are Grossly Misleading, Selective, and Materially False
Your client's narration, as presented in your letter, represents a deliberately curated half-story which conveniently omits the violent assaults he committed on two members of our client's production crew.
Contrary to the claim that your client was prevented from leaving the set without cause, the evidence available including multiple eyewitness accounts, police statements, medical documentation, and contemporaneous reports establish that:

1) It was your client who physically assaulted the Production Manager-Mr. Luke Obayi. slapping, punching and knocking him down for his effrontery of walking up to appeal to your client not to abandon the set abruptly and requested him to return to set to complete the role which he has been paid in full to perform.

2) Your client also assaulted our client's driver-Mr. Joshua Madu, who sustained visible
• injuries from being head-butted by your client, causing him bleeding in the ear and nose because he attempted to prevent your client from fleeing the scene of attack on the Production Manager who had been knocked down and was lying unconscious on the floor.

3) Several neighbors who witnessed the incident voluntarily reported to the Police and provided written statements confirming your client's aggressive conduct.
These are not allegations our client is merely asserting, but are facts supported by avalanche of credible evidence.

2. Your Client Was Not Restrained Arbitrarily - He Was Prevented from Fleeing After Assaulting Multiple Persons

The scenario suggested in your letter where your client was held hostage after completing his contractual obligations is false. Our client's instructions, corroborated by eyewitness accounts. reveal that:Your client attacked crew members without provocation and attempted to flee the scene immediately afterward while the Production Manager was unconsciously lying on the floor following the assault on him by your client.

Any effort to prevent his departure was solely for the purpose of ensuring he did not escape from the scene of a criminal act, pending police intervention.
Your client almost knocked down our client as he was aggressively fleeing from the scene of the criminal act, and the estate security men were alerted to prevent him from exiting the estate.

Even at that, your client was never assaulted by our client or her staff. The only physical contact that our client had with your client was her feeble and feminine push to prevent your client from deflating her car tyres without cause.

3. Your Client's Social Media Outburst Was a Smokescreen to Conceal His Conduct
Your client's decision to go live on Instagram was not a measure "for his safety and transparency," as you claim. It was a shenanigan behavior and public relations tactic designed to pre-empt and distort the narrative and suppress the true facts after realizing that several witnesses had observed his aggressive and assaultive behavior.

It is worthy of note that your client procured only selective CCTV footage from the estate security to manipulate public perception. The full sequence of events, as captured by eye witnesses and police statements, contradicts the sanitized version broadcast online. This conduct amounts to character assassination, misrepresentation, and bad faith, and may give rise to a counterclaim in defamation if persisted in. We are analyzing and evaluating the gravity of your client's conduct and the lasting professional damage caused to our client to determine the quantum of damage she has suffered because of these violations for further action.

4. Allegations of a "Mob Attack," Broken Mandible, and Harassment Are Fabricated
The allegations that your client was "mobbed," his tyres deflated, punched repeatedly and left with a "fractured mandible" are vehemently denied. Your client's trye was deflated by our client's driver to prevent your client from fleeing after causing him multiple injuries and bleeding. Our client's account, which is supported by physical witnesses present at the scene, reveals that no such mob action occurred. Your client was not beaten by anybody connected to our client. No one attempted to delete your client's phone recordings; rather, your client was the one attempting to flee with evidence of his own violent conduct resulting in escalation of tension at the estate gate.

 The video and claims being circulated were selectively recorded and orchestrated to present your client as a victim while concealing his own violent conduct. For instance, it was his attempt to violently deflate our client's car tyres that led to the push to prevent him from doing so because unlike your client who was attempting to escape, our client was not fleeing the scene and there was no reason to attempt to deflate her car tyres. 

Our client strongly rejects the false narrative and will not be intimidated or coerced into extortion under the weight of misleading and manipulated public sensationalism. Be assured of our client's commitment to submitting all available evidence, including eyewitness statements, medical reports, and photographic documentation-to the police and any competent authority whenever it becomes necessary.

5. Investigation Is Ongoing Both by the Police and The Actors' Guild of Nigeria - Your Client's Demand Is Premature and Misconceived

The incident in question is already the subject of a formal police investigation initiated by your client. Your client had hurried to the police to present himself as a victim in a bid to mask his criminal actions. The Actors' Guild of Nigeria (AGN) is also investigating the incident. We find it curious that, while these investigations are yet to be concluded and while witness statements clearly contradict your client's narrative, your firm has proceeded to issue a demand letter predicated entirely on unverified ailegations and distortions. Until the police conclude their findings, any civil demand predicated on allegations that are the very subject of ongoing police investigation is legally premature, ethically questionable, and potentially abusive of the legal process.

6. Our Client Is Not Liable for Any Purported Breach of Fundamental Rights
In the circumstances, your allegations of breach of your client's fundamental rights have no factual basis and no legal merit because there was no unlawful detention. Also, there was no violation of his dignity and there was no infringement on freedom of movement beyond preventing a suspect from escaping the scene of an alleged crime and there was no threat or violence committed by our client.

On the contrary, it is your client's assaultive and violent conduct that violated the rights of two innocent individuals who were simply carrying out their work. Therefore, your demand for N100,000,000.00 compensation is baseless, unsupported by fact, and rejected in its entirety.

7. Our Client Reserves All Legal Rights
Given the facts, our client reserves her rights to:File a formal petition for assault and conduct likely to cause breach of peace against your client.
Initiate a defamation action for the false, damaging, and malicious statements he has circulated online.
Seek damages for interference with production, loss suffered, and reputational harm.

We trust your client will be properly advised to refrain from further defamatory publications and to cooperate fully with law enforcement to allow the investigation to run its

8. Conclusion

For the avoidance of doubt no apology will be issued to your client and no compensation whatsoever will be paid. Our client rejects your claims in their entirety. We await the conclusion of the ongoing police investigation, which we are certain will expose the falsehood of your client's

Yours faithfully,
PP: ADOLPHUS & CO