Much ado about a book! There will always be hawks and doves on both sides. It is at such times that I appreciate the admonition of Gordon B Hincklrey:
“A small publication that came to me some years ago carried the following: ‘Once a man who had been slandered by a newspaper came to Edward Everett asking what to do about it. Said Everett, ‘Do Nothing! Half the people who bought the paper never saw the article. Half of those who saw it, did not read it. Half of those who understood it, did not believe it. Half of those who believed it are of no account anyway’ (“Sunny Side of the Street,” Nov. 1989). So many of us make a great fuss over matters of small consequence. We are so easily offended. Happy is the man who can brush aside the offending remarks of another and go on his way.”
The heavens have no fury like a lawyer scorned. On account of Aare Afe Babalola’s complaint that Dele Farotimi criminally libelled him in his book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System”, the younger lawyer was bundled from Lagos to Ado-Ekiti to face the music. Social media has since been clogged with positive and negative reactions on both sides. The matter has become so incendiary that even senior lawyers and commentators have been very careful in their analyses. Nobody wants to be at the receiving end of criminal liability, least of all lawyers and columnists!
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL?
Aare Babalola, 95, is a legal icon and the revered Founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD). He was called to the Bar in England after being awarded the University of London’s LLB in 1963. The defendant is the gutsy 56-year-old Dele Farotimi, also a lawyer, a seasoned political activist and author. He was called to the Nigerian bar in 1999 and was in active legal practice until 2018.
Luckily, eggheads in the legal discipline have been educating ‘unlearned’ members of the public about the bolts and nuts of the matter in contention. The first thing that befuddled people outside the legal field was the confusion over whether libel was a civil or criminal matter.
Dr. Olusegun Abejide generously shares his professional view: “Civil defamation focuses on providing remedies to the victim through compensatory or punitive damages. The defamed individual brings a lawsuit against the defamer, seeking redress for the harm done to their reputation. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defamatory statements were false, damaging, and made with malice or negligence. When the aggrieved party seeks monetary compensation or a public apology to restore their reputation, they often pursue civil cases.
“Criminal defamation, on the other hand, involves treating defamation as a public wrong. Here, the state prosecutes the defendant, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offence and its impact. Criminal defamation emphasises deterrence, sending a clear message that slander carries severe consequences.”
But why was Farotimi’s case treated as a criminal matter and not a civil suit?
DEFAMATION
Abejide explains: *Defamation remains actionable as both a civil and a criminal matter under Nigerian law,* enshrined in statutes and judicial precedents. Section 373 of Nigeria’s Criminal Code Act provides the framework for prosecuting criminal defamation, underscoring its significance in maintaining societal order and protecting individual reputations…
“Take the hypothetical scenario involving *Mr. Farotimi and Chief Afe Babalola,* a prominent figure based in Ado Ekiti. If defamatory material targeting Chief Afe Babalola originates in Lagos but affects his reputation, businesses, and personal relationships in Ekiti, the legal right to address the matter in Ekiti is unequivocal. The “theory of effect” upholds the principle of establishing jurisdiction when the defamatory act yields tangible consequences.”
This explanation seems to neutralise the accusation by Farotimi’s teeming admirers who have seized the cyber superhighway by the jugular alleging that the lawyer was conspiratorially and illegally abducted from Lagos to Ado-Ekiti in a replay of the same kind of accusation of self-help he had made against Aare Babalola which caused the original problem. Why would his accuser use the state’s law enforcement machinery to ‘abduct’ the accused to Ado-Ekiti if not as a result of collusion?
The arrest of the human rights advocate sparked so much public interest in his book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System” to the extent that it became the bestseller on Amazon and Kindle, and also generated worldwide buzz on the internet.
However, in addition to the 16 counts of criminal defamation of senior lawyer Babalola filed against him based on excerpts from the book before a chief magistrate’s court in Ado Ekiti, the police also filed new charges focusing on Farotimi’s comments in online interviews in which he reaffirmed allegations made in his book.
TWO CAMPS
The arguments that Nigerians have marshalled can be categorised into two camps. Farotimi’s sympathisers are convinced that Babalola is using his connections as a top lawyer with high connections in government to intimidate a professional junior. Many senior professionals are, however, on the ABUAD founder’s side. Among them is Dr Olusegun Abejide who argues as follows:
“The case of Chief Afe Babalola serves as a cautionary tale for those who assume they can defame others with impunity. The notion that a defendant should be immune to prosecution outside the location of their act reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of legal principles. Just as defamatory material can damage a reputation globally, so too can its accountability transcend borders…
“Let this serve as a reminder: free speech is a right, but with every right comes responsibility. Defamation is recklessness, and those who walk it must be prepared to face the consequences when the aggrieved seek justice. In a world where words have power, let us wield them with care, respect, and an unwavering commitment to truth.”
But the masters of the trade used to counsel temperance in days gone by. Let’s take a story told of the respected jurist Dr. Akinola Aguda who had served as Chief Justice of Botswana and opened a legal consultancy service after retirement. As narrated by Richard Akinola: “He told me that two briefs he usually advised against were Defamation and Divorce matters, particularly if the person is old. According to him, at the hearing, lots of unpalatable things that people never knew about, may come up, to the embarrassment of the parties and their children. For instance, in defamation matters when your reputation is in question, a defendant is at liberty to bring up a dirty past the plaintiff may have forgotten.…”
DIFFERENT FOLKS, DIFFERENT STROKES
Akinola also recounted another option open to anyone who has been libelled. Call it the Gani Option and you wouldn’t be wrong. It was the option taken by the inimitable lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (now deceased) when his erstwhile friend, Dr Olu Onagoruwa, wrote a book titled, ‘A REBEL IN GENERAL ABACHA’S GOVERNMENT’ to justify his serving in the Abacha government.
Fawehinmi wrote another book to counter the false assertions against him in Onagoruwa’s book.
While it is within the right of any individual to choose his right of action when defamed, the admonition of Dr Aguda is quite instructive. Let the sleeping dog snore!
_____________________
Wole Olaoye is a Public Relations consultant and veteran journalist. He can be reached on wole.olaoye@gmail.com, Twitter: @wole_olaoye; Instagram: woleola2021
