Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki didn’t do the things author Erin Cairns accused in the opening line of her report published October 25:
I am reporting Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki for unethical practices. He submitted a story entirely written by me into a Black voices magazine without my name on the byline….
In fact, Cairns’ name was on the byline. File 770 has identified the publication. An anonymous source in a position to have direct knowledge has verified that when Ekpeki submitted the story (1) his cover letter identified Erin Cairns as the co-author, and (2) the manuscript had both authors’ named on the title page. File 770 has seen archived copies of the documents.
Furthermore, while the publication’s mission is “supporting Black, African, and African Diaspora creatives globally”, File 770 learned from the source that the magazine has published material by a white author before, and that a submission having a white co-author would not have been a barrier to publication there.
The characterization of the story as “entirely written” by Cairns is disputed by Ekpeki in his rebuttal “ODE Response to Accusations By Erin” for the following reasons.
Cairns and Ekpeki came to work together on her story “The Face of Our Demon” in 2020 as detailed in her report. File 770’s post “Author Erin Cairns Charges Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki with ‘Unethical Practices’” outlined that history:
…Ekpeki, telling her there was by now more demand for his work than he could satisfy, asked if Cairns was interested in co-authoring, which in this case would mean jointly revising a story she had already drafted: “[He] would change the story to reflect a more own-voice context, and give it more Nigerian spiritualism and culture, but distance it from the real world inspiration I’d had for the story (a Makonde mask I’d seen in the Dallas Museum of Art).”
But when [Editor S] solicited the story they had co-authored for [Market 2], a “Black voices magazine”, Cairns disagreed with Ekpeki about the ethics of allowing that to happen, and following some tense correspondence (reproduced in the report) she got Ekpeki to withdraw the story….
In Ekpeki’s rebuttal posted on October 31, he calls the story a collaboration:
I submitted a story, written entirely by her, that’s not true. It was a collaborative piece. She consented to it being collaborative, before and after. She was satisfied with my contributions and okay with me sending it out. I gave her updates, before, during and after.
Asked for specific examples of his contributions, Ekpeki told File 770: “I helped ground the story. Things like settings, location, world, cultural leaning, character names. Basically world building.” Here are screencaps of texts where he recommended changes to her. [Click for larger images.]



His rebuttal continues:
“Erin was fine with my contributions, name change, settings, grounding the story regionally. These things are valid contributions which she consented to, accepted and was happy with. That constitutes a collaboration.
“These are from Erin Cairns own screenshots on her document which show us deliberating on the story. The grounding and changes I suggested which were made. Which she was fine with. So it wasn’t solely written by her. It had contributions from me, which we agreed on. That it was solely written by her, is just not true. After we dropped the story, she reached out to ask me for permission to send out her version without my contributions.”
Whether or not the quantity of writing Ekpeki had done would satisfy everyone that it should be termed a collaboration, the screencapped correspondence between them in Cairns’ report shows they intended to treat this story as being co-authored.
THE BACKGROUND TO CAIRNS’ CHARGES. Reading the messages between Cairns and Ekpeki shows that she was frustrated by their communications, and suspicious about why she wasn’t in the loop with the submission process for the story. Cairns explained in her report:
…He sent me a screenshot of him telling the magazine that I was attached (after the story had been accepted), but they had never responded. To me, this meant it was likely he had removed my name from the byline of the manuscript.
He reiterated that [Editor S] knew who I was and had still solicited the story. But still refused to give me contact with them…
Nevertheless, her name was on the byline of the manuscript. Was he unable to document that at the time? Because Ekpeki seems to have created more doubt by trying to allay Cairns’ concerns. That was the reason why, on the day the submission was accepted, he wrote to remind the editors about the co-authorship, and Cairns’ background, then copied that message to her.
Then there still remained her second concern, whether her story should have been submitted to this market at all. After the story was submitted, other editors — not [Editor S] — were assigned to review it. Cairns became worried whether it was ethical for her, as a white South African, to have submitted a story to [Market 2]. She was aware of their mission statement about “supporting Black, African, and African Diaspora creatives globally”.
I didn’t know how to even answer all of that, so the conversation became about whether or not [Market 2] was a Black voices only magazine. I said it seemed like it was black voices only from everything I could see. He insisted it wasn’t explicitly stated.
…I tried to be non-accusatory, but after realizing that [Editor S] wasn’t involved in the story’s selection, and this was a black voices magazine, I was panicking.
Even File 770 required the input of an anonymous source to verify that a white author could potentially be published by the magazine. Whereas Cairns got no reply from the editors of [Market 2] when she contacted them about her concerns directly:
Dear [Market 2] editors, My name is Erin Cairns, your magazine is publishing a story I co-wrote with Oghenechovwe Ekpeki called “The Face of Our Demon”. I only learned about this recently, and I’m feeling a little out of the loop. Oghenechovwe has been understandably busy these past few months, and while he’s passed on some of your communications in recent days, I can’t help but feel that some lines of communication have been crossed for a while. I did not understand that [Market 2] was a primarily, if not entirely, black voice magazine. I am a white South African, and if I had known, I would first have asked through this portal if a contribution from me would have been welcome. From what I understand, the story was accepted mid-December, but you did not know I was attached until early February. This leaves me a little unsure about whether my name will make it to the byline, or even if you still want to publish this story. If not, I completely understand, and I would immediately withdraw the story with sincere apologies. If there is to be more communication about ‘The Face of Our Demon’, could you please cc me in on the emails with Oghenechovwe so that we both have the information? He’s cc’d me in on his last email, the one with the revisions, but it was in response to a [S]ubmittable reply that I cannot see or follow
(Note: As discussed above, Cairns was unaware the editors knew she was a co-author from the beginning.)
The editors did not reply to Cairns. Instead, she learned from Ekpeki that they had informed him about the message.
I asked him outright why they weren’t willing to talk to me. In response, he abandoned the pretense of the market being open to a submission from me and told me ‘It’s an African exclusive space’ and the ‘politics of white Africans is complicated’. But he’d just spent months obfuscating this issue between me and the magazine. He said he was ‘trying to make sure things went smoothly till publication’ though what me or the magazine were supposed to do in the rough waters after publication would then likely be up to me and the magazine, with me looking like I was a part of hiding my own involvement in a story I’d written in its entirety.
Cairns soon asked Ekpeki to withdraw the story from [Market 2] and he did.
Ekpeki’s Response characterizes the problems between them as miscommunication, misunderstanding, and mismatched expectations:
…Could I have communicated better? Of course. You always can. But you must remember that we are both disabled, chronically ill people. And one of them, me, lives in way worse conditions, in the poverty capital of the world, with little to no access to health care. If anything there’s a human being who is less than perfect, doing the best he can, which could yet be better. Not malfeasance or lack of ethics, or malice or an attempt at theft. There was a lot of miscommunication and misunderstandings and assumptions on both sides from two people in not great situations…
At one point he says, “I apologize for the pain that caused”, however, the statement comes in the middle of a paragraph focused on his extenuating circumstances.
OTHER ISSUES IN CAIRNS REPORT. Cairns also objected to not having received the credit she deserved for the work she did on Ekpeki’s behalf. For example:
We interacted on twitter for a while, exchanging stories for critique which I had done many times before. But this gradually shifted into me editing stories, which at the time I did not know was for his co-edited anthology: [Anthology D]. When he told me a story I’d worked on was going to be in the anthology, I questioned him about what I’d been doing. He told me that for my help and work, my name would be in the acknowledgments of the book.
When the book was released, I bought a copy, and my name was nowhere to be found….
…He hadn’t been transparent with me about his involvement with [Anthology D] when it was being put together, even while I was editing for it. And when I asked about the other stories I was critiquing or editing for him, he would give me vague answers like he wanted it to be a pleasant surprise…
Ekpeki’s response is that the only story she edited for [Anthology D] was his:
…She did not edit stories, not the plural which were for the anthology. She edited one story, mine, which appeared on it. How can I acknowledge you in a book that’s not mine, for one story I have in it? Do people give credits for one story being copy edited, in the whole book? I do not recall promising this….
People’s reaction in social media has ranged from expressions of empathy for Cairns to contending that she should have been given credit as a co-editor of the book.
We now know that Anthology D was Dominion, which on the cover says it was edited by Zelda Knight and Ekpeki, with Joshua Omenga also named as an editor in the Amazon listing. Silvia Moreno-Garcia has weighed in on Bluesky (relevant portion of the thread begins here). Her updated views are excerpted below. Knight and Ekpeki have posted counter arguments to the thread.

ADDITIONAL REACTION IN SOCIAL MEDIA. Cairns’ report prompted several people to comment publicly about issues involving Ekpeki that until now were known to a limited number, or to come forward with their own complaints.
Ekpeki has responded to several of these criticisms and allegations in a Bluesky thread that starts here.
CONCLUSION. Erin Cairns led her report with the most volatile charges – that Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki had submitted a story “entirely written” by her solely under his own byline, and with the added deception that the market was a “Black voices magazine” whereas she is a white South African (living in the U.S.) But it has now been established that both her and Ekpeki’s names were on the byline of the manuscript, that the editor who solicited the submission knew her background, and that it was not inappropriate for her co-authored story to be submitted to the magazine, which has published a white author in the past.
The result is a more accurate set of facts to discuss. That does not put all controversy to rest. Other issues in Cairns’ report still remain open and are the subject of debate. And its publication has created ripples of criticism against Ekpeki in social media from those with complaints of their own.