When Ezra Olubi, the former chief technology officer and co-founder of Nigerian fintech giant Paystack, was booted from the company in November 2025, he signaled that his legal team would take appropriate action. He mentioned the decision had flouted due process and that legal steps were coming.
Some type of legal action was anticipated. But what unfolded last week is a plot twist almost nobody predicted.
In what can only be described as a strategic pivot—or perhaps a spectacular miscalculation—Olubi has initiated legal action not against Paystack, the company that fired him, but against David Hundeyin, one of Nigeria’s most prominent (and controversial) investigative journalists.
The lawsuit alleges that a series of Hundeyin’s social media posts amounted to defamation and caused severe reputational harm. Olubi’s legal representatives are demanding the removal of the posts, a published apology, and approximately $100,000 in compensation.
As of now, Hundeyin’s response has been characteristically combative: an email containing what sources describe as “quite a few expletives,” telling off the aggrieved party, his legal representatives, and apparently anyone with whom they may have crossed paths, “even for a fleeting, random moment in the massive entropy of living.”
Translation: Hundeyin is not backing down.
The Backstory: How Africa’s Most Celebrated Fintech Founder Became Its Most Controversial
To understand why this lawsuit matters—and why it’s generating so much attention—you need the full context of Olubi’s spectacular fall from grace.
The Rise: From Y Combinator to $200M Stripe Acquisition
Ezra Olubi co-founded Paystack in 2015 alongside Shola Akinlade. The company solved one of Africa’s biggest pain points: enabling businesses to accept online payments reliably. Within a year, Paystack became the first Nigerian startup accepted into Y Combinator, the prestigious Silicon Valley accelerator.
By 2020, Paystack had become the infrastructure powering payments for over 60,000 businesses across Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa. That October, Stripe acquired Paystack for over $200 million—one of the largest acquisitions of an African tech startup at the time and a watershed moment for the continent’s tech ecosystem.
Olubi, as CTO, was instrumental in building the technical architecture that made Paystack’s rapid scale possible. He was awarded the Officer of the Order of the Niger (OON) national honor by Nigeria’s then-President Muhammadu Buhari in 2022.
He was, by every measure, one of Nigeria’s tech royalty.
The Fall: Sexual Misconduct Allegations and Decade-Old Tweets
Everything changed in mid-November 2025 when a woman using the handle “Max” (later identified as “Maki” in some reports), who described herself as Olubi’s ex-partner, published allegations on X detailing what she characterized as a pattern of controlling behavior, emotional manipulation, and inappropriate relationships, including with a current Paystack employee.
The initial allegations were explosive enough. But what followed was even more damaging: netizens began excavating Olubi’s old tweets from 2009-2013—posts that had been public for over a decade but had somehow escaped serious scrutiny during Paystack’s rise, Y Combinator vetting, and Stripe’s due diligence process.
The resurfaced tweets were disturbing. According to multiple reports, they included:
- Sexually explicit jokes about colleagues
- References that appeared to trivialize sexual harassment
- Posts with pedophilic undertones
- Comments referencing bestiality
- Claims that “having sex with a minor cures HIV”
One tweet from May 23, 2011 read: “Monday will be more fun with an ‘a’ in it. Touch a coworker today. Inappropriately.”
Another stated: “Save water. Take a bath with your neighbour’s daughter.”
The online response was swift and brutal. Within 48 hours, Paystack suspended Olubi from all duties pending a formal investigation. He deactivated his X account shortly after.
On November 22, just nine days after the suspension, Paystack terminated Olubi’s employment, citing “significant negative reputational damage to the company” and noting the tweets were “not consistent with our values and with the standards we expect from anyone in a leadership position.”
Olubi responded with a public statement saying he was fired before the investigation concluded, without any meeting or opportunity to respond—”in clear contravention of the terms of the suspension and Paystack’s own internal policies.”
Legal action was promised. Everyone assumed it would be against Paystack.
Instead, Olubi went after the journalist.
Why David Hundeyin? Understanding the Target
David Hundeyin is not your typical tech journalist. He’s an investigative reporter who has built a reputation—and a substantial following—by taking on powerful institutions and figures across Nigeria, often through aggressive social media commentary and long-form investigative pieces.
His track record includes:
- Exposing labor violations at Indian companies operating in Nigeria (which earned him a letter of appreciation from India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi—yes, really)
- Investigating Flutterwave, one of Africa’s most valuable fintechs, over allegations of financial impropriety
- Publishing investigative pieces on Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility, including releasing his Guinean passport (which got Hundeyin’s Twitter account temporarily locked)
- Winning the People Journalism Prize for Africa for his COVID-19 human rights reporting
He’s also extremely controversial. In October 2024, the UK’s Royal Courts of Justice ordered Hundeyin to pay £95,000 (~$201 million naira) in damages to BBC journalist Charles Northcott after Hundeyin falsely accused him of obtaining sexual favors from reporter Kiki Mordi during the production of BBC’s “Sex for Grades” documentary.
Hundeyin didn’t show up to court, didn’t take down the article as ordered, and has reportedly not paid the judgment.
He was also dismissed from a fellowship at the University of Cambridge’s African Studies Centre in 2023 after allegations of misogynistic and sexist comments at an Oxford event, and is currently wanted by Nigerian police as an alleged accomplice in a classified document leak case.
In short: David Hundeyin is exactly the kind of journalist who doesn’t intimidate easily, doesn’t back down from legal threats, and has a track record of doubling down when sued.
Which makes Olubi’s decision to target him fascinating.
What Did Hundeyin Actually Say?
The specific social media posts Olubi’s lawsuit references have not been fully disclosed publicly, but based on Hundeyin’s coverage pattern during the Olubi scandal, the journalist appears to have:
- Amplified the initial allegations from “Max/Maki” about Olubi’s conduct
- Shared screenshots of the resurfaced decade-old tweets
- Provided commentary on what the scandal revealed about accountability in Nigeria’s tech ecosystem
- Questioned why Paystack and Stripe had not caught these public posts during their due diligence
Hundeyin, like many journalists and commentators, was reporting on and analyzing a story that was already massively public. The tweets in question were Olubi’s own words, posted on his own account, and had been public for over a decade.
The legal question becomes: Is sharing someone’s own public statements, even with critical commentary, defamation?
The Legal Problem: Truth Is an Absolute Defense
Here’s where Olubi’s lawsuit faces an uphill battle.
In defamation cases, truth is typically an absolute defense. If what Hundeyin posted was:
- Screenshots of Olubi’s actual tweets (provably true)
- Reporting on allegations made by others (accurately attributed)
- Commentary and opinion based on publicly available information
Then Olubi would need to prove that Hundeyin:
- Made false statements of fact (not opinion)
- Made them with actual malice or negligence
- Caused quantifiable reputational harm beyond what Olubi’s own tweets and the workplace allegations had already caused
That’s a tough case to make when:
- The tweets are real and were posted by Olubi
- The initial allegations came from someone else, not Hundeyin
- Paystack itself cited the tweets (not Hundeyin’s coverage) as grounds for termination
- Multiple media outlets (TechMoonshot, Bloomberg, Premium Times, WeeTracker, Punch, etc.) covered the same story
Moreover, public figures—which Olubi certainly was as co-founder of a $200M+ acquired company and holder of a national honor—typically face a higher bar in defamation cases. They must prove “actual malice,” meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
Legal observers are skeptical. A.O. Akinyemi, a corporate lawyer who has been analyzing the Paystack case, noted that using someone’s own public statements against them is generally not actionable. “If the conduct was public at the time of contracting, it can be strongly argued that the company is deemed to have accepted it. You cannot accept a fact when it benefits you and reject it later when it becomes inconvenient.”
The same principle applies to Hundeyin: You cannot post something publicly for over a decade, then sue a journalist for pointing it out when it becomes inconvenient.
The Strategic Question: Why Sue the Journalist Instead of the Company?
This is where things get really interesting.
Olubi had—and presumably still has—legitimate legal grievances against Paystack:
- Contractual claims: He alleges he was fired before the investigation concluded, without a hearing, violating Paystack’s own policies
- Due process arguments: As a co-founder and board member, he likely had contractual protections beyond standard employment terms
- Reputational clause disputes: Legal experts have questioned whether decade-old public tweets can trigger reputational damage clauses in employment contracts
- Potential wrongful termination: Depending on Nigerian labor law and his specific contract terms
Going after Paystack would be expensive, lengthy, and complicated—but it’s the entity that actually harmed his immediate economic interests by terminating his employment.
Instead, Olubi is suing a journalist with a documented history of:
- Not showing up to court hearings
- Ignoring court orders
- Not paying judgments
- Being internationally controversial
- Having limited assets to collect from
So why do it?
Several theories:
Theory 1: Testing the Waters
Hundeyin is a softer target than Stripe-backed Paystack. If Olubi can win against Hundeyin (or at least extract an apology and settlement), it:
- Establishes a legal precedent
- Signals to other media that covering him is risky
- Creates a narrative that he’s been defamed, not just held accountable
Then he can leverage that in a bigger case against Paystack.
Theory 2: Reputation Management
Olubi may believe that shifting the narrative from “disgraced founder with disturbing tweets” to “victim of media persecution” is worth the legal fees. Suing the journalist creates a counter-story: “I’m being unfairly attacked.”
Theory 3: Chilling Effect
Even if Olubi doesn’t win or collect damages, the lawsuit sends a message to other journalists and commentators: “Cover me, and you’ll get sued.” This could deter future investigative pieces or critical commentary.
Theory 4: Genuine Belief in Defamation
It’s possible Olubi genuinely believes Hundeyin went beyond fair reporting and into defamatory territory. Perhaps there are specific posts we haven’t seen publicly that cross legal lines.
Theory 5: Emotional Response
Getting fired from the company you co-founded, having your decade-old tweets resurfaced, and watching your reputation collapse in days is traumatic. Olubi may simply be lashing out at the most visible commentator on his downfall.
Most legal observers think it’s a combination of theories 2, 3, and 5.
Hundeyin’s Response: Maximum Defiance
True to form, Hundeyin has not issued a formal legal response. Instead, sources say his email reply to Olubi’s legal team was “quite a few expletives,” essentially telling everyone involved to fuck off.
This is classic Hundeyin. When the UK court ordered him to pay £95,000 to BBC’s Charles Northcott, he didn’t pay. He didn’t take down the offending article. He continues to operate as if the judgment doesn’t exist.
Whether this is principled resistance to legal intimidation or reckless disregard for legal process depends on your perspective. But it’s consistent with his brand.
Hundeyin’s likely calculation:
- He has limited assets in Nigeria to seize
- He’s currently based outside Nigeria (refugee status in an undisclosed location)
- He has a large social media following that sees him as fighting power
- Backing down would damage his journalistic credibility
- The lawsuit is legally weak anyway
So he’s doubling down, as expected.
What This Means for Nigeria’s Tech Ecosystem
The Olubi-Hundeyin lawsuit is more than a personal dispute. It’s become a flashpoint for larger debates about accountability, power, and press freedom in Africa’s tech sector.
The Accountability Question
Nigeria’s tech ecosystem has grown explosively over the past decade. Startups have raised billions in venture capital. Founders have become celebrities. National honors have been awarded.
But with that growth has come limited accountability. The Olubi case exposed:
- How decade-old problematic social media posts were ignored during due diligence
- How workplace misconduct allegations were allegedly not addressed until public exposure
- How “genius founder” narratives can shield people from scrutiny
- How quickly ecosystems protect their heroes until they can’t anymore
The lawsuit against Hundeyin raises uncomfortable questions: Is holding founders accountable now “defamation”? Can journalists be sued for reporting on founders’ own public statements?
The Press Freedom Angle
Hundeyin is controversial, yes. But suing journalists for covering public scandals sets a dangerous precedent.
If founders can sue reporters for amplifying their own tweets and reporting on workplace allegations, investigative journalism in tech becomes nearly impossible. Every critical piece becomes a legal liability.
This is especially concerning in Nigeria, where press freedom is already under strain. The government has increasingly used legal pressure, intimidation, and in Hundeyin’s case, criminal accusations to silence critical journalism.
Tech founders joining that effort—even if unintentionally—could further chill investigative reporting on the sector.
The “Genius Founder” Myth
Presidential aide Gimba Kakanda tweeted that Olubi’s case reflects how “pop-culture socialisation suggests one cannot be a genius unless they deviate from established patterns of behaviour.”
Translation: We’ve glorified the “eccentric genius founder” to the point where red flags are rebranded as quirks.
Olubi’s unconventional personal style, his eccentric public persona, his “maverick” image—these were celebrated as marks of brilliance. Until they weren’t.
The lawsuit feels like an attempt to reclaim that narrative: “I’m not accountable for my past; I’m a victim of media persecution.”
Whether that works remains to be seen.
The Likely Outcomes
Based on similar cases and legal precedent, here are the probable scenarios:
Scenario 1: Hundeyin Ignores It (Most Likely)
- Lawsuit proceeds
- Hundeyin doesn’t show up
- Court issues default judgment in Olubi’s favor
- Hundeyin doesn’t pay
- Olubi has a symbolic legal victory but collects nothing
- Probability: 60%
Scenario 2: Lawsuit Gets Dismissed
- Hundeyin files a motion to dismiss
- Court finds truth defense applicable
- Case thrown out
- Hundeyin claims vindication
- Probability: 25%
Scenario 3: Settlement
- Backchannels negotiate
- Hundeyin removes specific posts, issues no apology
- Olubi drops suit
- Both claim victory
- Probability: 10%
Scenario 4: Hundeyin Fights and Wins
- Hundeyin shows up, mounts defense
- Court finds in his favor
- Becomes precedent for press freedom
- Probability: 5%
Most observers expect Scenario 1. Hundeyin will ignore it, Olubi will get a judgment he can’t enforce, and the story becomes another chapter in Nigeria’s messy intersection of tech, power, and accountability.
The Bigger Picture: What Happens Next
While the Hundeyin lawsuit dominates headlines, the real story is what comes after:
For Olubi:
- Does he eventually sue Paystack/Stripe?
- Can he rebuild his career in tech, or is this reputational damage permanent?
- Do other companies/investors distance themselves?
For Paystack:
- How does the independent workplace investigation conclude?
- What does this do to company culture and employee morale?
- Does Stripe intervene more directly in governance?
For David Hundeyin:
- Does this lawsuit create legal exposure in other jurisdictions?
- Can he continue operating with multiple outstanding judgments?
- Does this further cement his status as “martyr journalist” or “reckless provocateur”?
For Nigeria’s Tech Ecosystem:
- Do other founders/companies become more careful about their digital footprints?
- Does this create more robust internal accountability mechanisms?
- Or does it drive a chilling effect where criticism = legal risk?
The Uncomfortable Truth
Here’s what nobody wants to say but everyone’s thinking:
Olubi’s decade-old tweets were public throughout Paystack’s entire history. They were available during:
- Y Combinator’s vetting process (2016)
- Multiple fundraising rounds
- Stripe’s acquisition due diligence (2020)
- His national honor award (2022)
Either nobody looked, or they looked and didn’t care.
The tweets only became “reputational damage” when someone made them go viral. That’s not a journalist’s fault. That’s a collective failure of accountability over a decade.
Suing the journalist for pointing out what was always visible is like getting mad at the fire alarm instead of the fire.
Conclusion: The Wrong Target at the Wrong Time
Ezra Olubi’s decision to sue David Hundeyin instead of Paystack is legally questionable, strategically puzzling, and optically disastrous.
It shifts the narrative from “fired founder seeking due process” to “disgraced executive trying to silence press.”
It turns Hundeyin—already controversial—into a martyr for press freedom.
It distracts from legitimate grievances Olubi might have against Paystack’s termination process.
And it likely won’t result in any meaningful financial recovery.
But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is to create enough legal noise that the story becomes about “media persecution” instead of “accountability failure.”
If that’s the strategy, history suggests it rarely works. Just ask anyone who’s tried to sue their way out of a scandal.
The truth—and Olubi’s own tweets—are still out there. And no lawsuit against a journalist will change that.
Comments 1