By Jonathan Ugbal
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, sitting in Apo and presided over by Justice Abubakar Shani Baba on Thursday awarded NGN10 million to Mrs. Elizabeth Alami Ayade, wife of Mr. Frank Ayade, the younger brother of former Cross River Governor, Senator Ben Ayade in a defamation suit she filed against Nigerian Journalist and activist, Citizen Agba Jalingo.
Justice Abubakar in his ruling in Suit Number FCT/HC/CV/3303/2022, said after going through the arguments of the Claimant and the four defendants, there were five issues for determination, namely; whether a publication is defamatory and libelous, and whether the defendant’s defense on fair comment holds water.
Also, whether the publication refers to the claimant; whether the claimant has suffered humiliation and embarrassment, and whether such are entitled to reliefs.
First, The Matter
Mrs. Ayade who was in Court on Thursday, had in July 2022, through her lawyer, Uyi Frank Obayagbona Esq written to Mr. Jalingo seeking a retraction of a Facebook post that queried why a suspended staff of the University of Calabar, Paschal Aboh Esq was facing trial for impersonating a student of the Nigerian Law School, Abuja campus while the person who allegedly contracted him (Mrs. Ayade) was walking free.
She asked for an apology to be published in two national dailies, including, but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, and Cross River Watch (not CrossRiverWatch) as well as NGN 500 million in damages. He was given fourteen days to comply, otherwise legal proceedings will be instituted against him.
However, less than five days after being served with the letter of demand, she petitioned the Nigerian Police Force, who arrested Citizen Jalingo in a gestapo styled operation after holding his wife and daughter hostage for hours at his Lagos residence on August 19, 2022.
READ MORE: Gov. Ben Ayade’s In-Law Responsible For Jalingo’s Arrest, Attempted Kidnap Of CrossRiverWatch Staff
He was detained at the Alapere police station and, later, at Area F Command in Ikeja before he was flown to Abuja the next day where it was revealed that Mrs. Ayade had abandoned the civil approach and rather petitioned him for allegedly defaming her character. He was released later that night and when asked to return two days later on August 22nd, was asked to go back to Lagos since Mrs. Ayade failed to show up.
He was informed in January 2023, that a criminal suit bordering on cybercrime and cyberstalking was preferred against him for causing “insult” and “Ill will” against Mrs. Ayade. He was arraigned on March 27th 2023 before Justice Zainab Abubakar at the Federal High Court, Abuja in suit number; FHC/ABJ/CR/565/2022 and subsequently remanded at the Medium Security Custodial Center, Kuje.
He was admitted to bail on March 30th and regained freedom one week later on April 3rd, 2023. After several delays, including the criminal trial commencing de novo before Justice Joyce Abdumalik, Citizen Jalingo was discharged and acquitted on July 8th, 2024.
The Civil Case Continues
Meanwhile, the civil proceedings continued at the Apo division of the High Court of the FCT, where Citizen Jalingo, Francis Etung Ufe, Sylvia Felix, and Paul Utionkpan were listed as first to fourth defendants respectively.
Determining The Issues
On issue one, the Court held that the evidence presented by the first witness, which is the claimant herself that those involved in the malpractice case are facing trial at the High Court of the FCT, Bwari as well as the fact the second witness, her friend who said she saw it on Facebook while the third witness, a relative of the Claimant who said it was brought to his notice by a student of the University of Calabar even though he did not believe it was enough to prove that it was accessed by third parties and in permanent form.
The Court further upheld the argument of the Claimant that comments on the Facebook post made by the first defendant showed that she had been defamed, with that of the second defendant reading; “must they always bribe?” enough to prove that he has also defamed her.
He however said the comments by the third and fourth defendants which read; “law school needs to explain,” and “fraud no dey do Dem,” were too vague and did not directly refer to the Claimant. The Court found the first and second defendants liable to have committed libel, while the third and fourth did not.
On issue two, the Court said the first defendant’s reliance on an anonymous source which he refused to disclose to the Court in line with the ethics of his profession cannot be treated as fair comment and therefore not cogent enough to be relied upon as qualified privilege.
The Court, which also held that fair comment can only arise based on opinion, and not factually as stated in the publication, further declared that the first defendant recklessly disregarded the truth after being presented with facts by counsel to the Claimants.
On issue three, the Court held that the evidence presented by the three witnesses of the Claimant as well as the exhibits tendered, shows that the first and second defendants explicitly named the Claimant while the third and fourth defendants posts did not have a direct referral to the Claimant.
On issue four, the Court held that having established that the Claimant, a legal practitioner and business person had suffered humiliation and embarrassment, the posts of the first and second defendants caused reputational damage to the Claimant while that of the third and fourth defendants caused little or no damage.
On issue five, the Court held that the publications by the first and second defendants are libelous and defamatory, hence, the Claimant is entitled to damages. “It therefore follows that the first and second defendants shall pay damages,” the Court held.
Declarations
The Court declared that the first and second defendants are liable for libel and defamation of character of the Claimant.
The first defendant shall pay the Claimant NGN 10 million for general damages.
The second defendant shall pay the Claimant NGN 5 million as general damages for libel.
The first and second defendants shall publish on the Guardian and Vanguard Newspapers within 14 days of the order, “a retraction of their false publication on CrossRiverWatch and Facebook,” which will include an unreserved apology.
The first and second defendants, their agents, privies, assigns, etc are “perpetually restrained” from making further defamatory posts.
That there will be no legal cost.
Reactions
Meanwhile, Citizen Jalingo has said he will appeal the decision of the trial Court. His counsel, F. Baba Isa Esq. had informed the Court that they will apply for the judgment, study it, and then know the right way forward. He commended the Court for its industry and said the case had taught him a lot. In a similar, vein, the counsel to Mrs. Ayade, Uyi O. Esq. also commended the Court for doing justice even though he asked for the costs awarded during trial to be paid, which the Court said it has already ruled.
Leave feedback about this