By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

In the year 2004, immediately after graduation from the Nigerian Law School, myself and another lawyer from the now Rivers State University, saw on the list of NYSC (National Youth Service Corps) that we were posted to Sokoto State.

My first thoughts were “why me oh God?”, “what have I done wrong?” “To the best of my abilities,I have tried to lead a religious life throughout my five years at the University as an undergraduate, I didn’t not join any secret cult, I did not indulge in other vices. Now why was it that I was being posted to Sokoto State instead of a nearby State to Rivers State, which is my state of origin?”. These were the initial thoughts that ran through my head.

My parents were not the type that intervened in anything like this, they were not like parents that would pay money to change my posting from Sokoto State to a nearby State. My father as a lawyer was too proud to beg anyone and my mother was a school teacher who did not have connections to any high ranking public officials.

All they did was provide me with the funds to travel to Sokoto State to resume my NYSC service.

I still remember the nine hour journey from Abuja to Sokoto State, with a stop over at TALATA MARFARA at Zamfara State for lunch.

I was initially posted to the Sokoto State Ministry of Justice but later I was re-assigned to the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, Sokoto State Office.

It proved to be one of the most memorable episodes in my lifetime.

I was assigned as a Duty Solicitor to the Sharia Courts in Sokoto State and my task was to provide legal representation to the indigent persons of Sokoto State at the Sharia Courts.

Hon. Justice Tambuwal, a judge of the Sokoto State Sharia Courts took me under his wings, after he closed from daily court sessions, he gave me private lectures on the legal authorities under the four schools of Sharia law (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i and Maliki).

As a result of the combination of these private lectures and my daily representation of clients at the Sharia Courts, I became so proficient that I wrote and published my first book entitled: “Access to Justice in Sharia Courts”. The then Director-General of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria also gave me a letter of commendation as the best performing NYSC lawyer.

However, two days before the launch of the said book, I saw a dark side of some persons who are so-called adherents of Sharia law.

The foreword to the said book was authored by the then Sultan of Sokoto in the year 2005.

These so-called adherents of Sharia law are not open to any form of criticisms no matter how constructive. A one line sentence in the said book was all it took for them to completely reject the said book.

They pronounced a “fatwa” on me and as they say the rest is history. I am still thankful to Almighty God Jehovah that I am alive to write this.

I am thankful that they resorted to writing to the NYSC Sokoto State to state their grievances.

However, that book proved very instrumental because years later, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law gave me a job as a Research Fellow on Study of Age of Criminal Responsibility of Children Under Islamic Law of Iran based on their review of the said book.

What I learned from that experience is that some Islamic Law adherents and proponents do not believe in dialogue and debate with others who hold any different opinions before they can reach any conclusion.

So if they must insist on having it their own way, no problem, let them establish Sharia law and courts within their jurisdictions but let the funding come from their own coffers.

Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja is a Senior Research Fellow/Legislative Drafting Lawyer at NILDS, National Assembly of Nigeria.

By Oseloka H. Obaze

President Bola Tinubu’s Maiden Presidential Media Chat on 23 December, 2024, elicited understandable eclectic reactions. There were rave reviews and some unfavourable judgments. As 2024 ends and Nigerians behold 2025, there will be more punditry and assessments of the 500-and-something days of Tinubu’s rulership and a peep into the crystal ball to ascertain what the political future portends for him as a leader and for Nigeria under his watch.  For the moment, two viruses have afflicted Nigeria’s policy and decision-making space – bad leaders and bad advisers.  Often, observers focus on the leader and hardly on the coterie of advisers that are indeed ill-advising the leader.

Except perhaps for researchers and academics, most Nigerians will not readily recount who were the Ministers, Special Advisers, and Advisers to former Nigerian military leaders and presidents.  Except for a few, most advisers faded into oblivion with the passing of their respective regimes and time.  Most, did not even record the accounts of their stewardship for posterity. Still Nigeria’s history is replete with public policy decisions obliquely foisted on the nation by whimsical and insensately ambitious political advisers, who never serve as good governance guardrails. That mindset persists in the present administration.

It is worth recalling that Ironsi’s imposition of unitary government on the nation in1966; Gowon’s decisions to renege on the Aburi Accord in 1967 and  to postpone  the military handover date in1975; Shagari’s decision to travel to India while Necom House was burning in 1982; Buhari’s enforcement of the  infamous ‘Decree 4’ of 1984; Babangida’s annulment of the 1993 elections; Shonekan’s decision not to retire Gen. Abacha in 1993; Abacha’s decision to execute the Ogoni Nine in 1995 and Jonathan’s decision to run in 2015, were all products of policy recommendations by the so-called presidential advisers.

INEC’s decision to dump the BVAS and IREV during the 2023 presidential elections was fraught with controversial consequences. Likewise, Tinubu’sremoval of the petroleum subsidy without a default option caused national havoc; while a skewered 2024 Tax Reform Executive Bill had to be withdrawn due to public opposition. Not one single adviser took responsibility for these warped national policies that impacted negatively on the nation. There were no consequences whatsoever. Ironically, these advisers do not go through legislative vetting. And those who do, often, do not face rigorous confirmation processes.

In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, there were a slew of good and bad political advisers.  The niche and excesses of the bad advisers were not so glaring then because there was ethnic balancing and Nigeria’s oil wealth and the accruing global clout mostly did the talking. Then also, we could afford to throw oil money at our national problems and oil countertrade at our interlocutors.  Not anymore!

Yet as in Nigeria and elsewhere, political experts seized with philosophical basis of governance, contend that “Political advisors are playing an increasingly important role in modern democracies, prompting various attempts to describe and understand the evolving and complex aspects of their new responsibilities.”

Thinking along these lines, any political science or governance undergraduate worth his or her grades, would readily tell you that they read Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince in their first year; and that he or she believes that every purposeful national leader should read the pithy book at least once. Indeed, it is assumed, and correctly so that most successful political leaders keep a copy of The Prince on their nightstands, after all, there is hardly any modern language into which at The Prince has not been translated.

Present and future global leaders will need to heed Machiavelli’s counsel insofar as the role of their advisers.  So too must President Tinubu. After all, as surmised by Professor Haig Patapan,“The Prince is arguably the most well-known and provocative assessment of the relationship between leaders and advisors.”

What is the relevance of The Prince to Nigeria’s present leadership? Shall we tell the President? Incrementally there’s absence of robust bipartisan policy debates. Rather, the present crop of Nigeria leaders and their advisers seem fixated on insatiable pursuit of wealth and materialism at public expense. The attendant risks are profound. Covetousness will never result in satisfaction, especially when greed eats probity for breakfast. Our leaders seem unsatisfied of robbing Nigeria blind.

As Machiavelli warned “When advisors and princes are thus satisfied, they can trust each other, but if not, the end will always be disastrous for one or the other.” As he admonishes, “any bought loyalty is insecure.” Hence his advice to leaders is to act for the good of the state and to avoid self-interest. Thus, rulers should choose wise and honest advisers.  In the past 18 months Nigerians have gleaned certain negative values from extant governmental policies, practices, and programmes. Official malfeasance is rife and prevailing Malgovernance stretches incredulity; as advisers seem to be in government for themselves. Also Machiavelli averred that “the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his wisdom, is by observing the men he has around him. If they are capable and loyal he will be considered wise….But when they are lacking in those qualities, one form a bad opinion of the prince, for his first error was in choosing them.”

Our present crop of presidential advisers tends to exhibit crass political idiocy. They engage in state capture and consider Nigerians ignorant. If Nigerians have thus formed a bad opinion of President Tinubu, it derives in part, from his error of choosing his advisers. The men and women he has around him are very un-Nigerian; they are neither patriots nor on the lookout for broad national interest and inclusivity.  They fan bigotry and willfully put themselves first, before country. Perhaps they follow their leader’s precepts. At a time when Nigeria is on life support and needs urgent resuscitation; at a time when Nigeria needs selfless and exemplary leadership in all arms and tiers of government, our national leaders and their advisers are hardly forthcoming. Such faux leadership style and disposition is simply disconcerting. History does not always repeat itself; but it has very comical but wicked ways of mimicking the atrocious past.

________

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

By the time Muhammadu Buhari ran for a second presidential term in 2019, it seemed clear that the judicial process in many parts of the country had been actively co-opted in the intimidation of civic opponents of the government, both real and imagined. The case of Steven Kefas was a defining moment in that process.

Steven was a compelling activist and amplifier of the crisis of human security in Southern Kaduna under former governor, Nasir el-Rufai. For this, el-Rufai arranged the abduction of Steven from his residence in Rivers State on 8 May 2019. From there they bundled him into interminable detention in Kaduna on the imagined crime of criminally defaming Cafra Caino, an acolyte of the governor who was also Chair of the Kajuru Local Government Council.

For this invented crime, el-Rufai had Steven charged before a Magistrate in Kaduna who refused him bail even when the crime was clearly a misdemeanor. Steven renewed his application for bail before the Federal High Court in Kaduna where the presiding judge, Peter Mallong, incredulously ruled that his suit was “an abuse of court process” because the Magistrate had previously refused bail. Turning judicial precedent on its head, Peter Mallong held that the decision of the Magistrate was binding on the Federal High Court.

Gloria Ballason, who argued Steven’s case, was also my lawyer when el-Rufai sought to also abduct me in circumstances that would have been not dis-similar to what he did to Steven. On the eve of the presidential election in 2019, el-Rufai went public with claims of a massacre of scores of Fulanis in Kajuru, a community against whom he appeared to have an implacable beef. The following morning, I publicly rebutted his claims. The security services were pointedly unable to support his claim.

After the 2019 elections, el-Rufai instructed my prosecution before the Magistrates Court in Kaduna on fanciful charges of incitement and injurious falsehood. The case did not even have a charge number. The magistrate called up the case on two successive occasions and, when I did not show up, decided the time was ripe to issue a warrant for my abduction. Contrary to my entitlements under the Nigerian constitution, even bothered to bring the charges to my attention. It seemed as if the entire objective from the beginning was to set me up for abduction.

Informed off-record about the case by sympathetic law enforcement agents subsequently, Gloria Ballason first issued filings objecting to how the court had chosen to proceed. Thereafter, she instituted proceedings before Peter Mallong’s Federal High Court in Kaduna against el-Rufai and the police arising out of these facts alleging breach of my constitutional rights.

One year after the case was instituted, in October 2020, Peter Mallong issued his decision. He claimed that the affidavit in support of my court processes sworn to by a litigation clerk in the law firm of my lawyers, was incompetent because the deponent was someone other than me. It was as if he had never heard of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules which allowed for what the litigation clerk did. As a result, Peter Mallong said, my case was incompetent and his court lacked jurisdiction over it. After holding that he lacked jurisdiction, however, Peter Mallong went on to “dismiss” my case.

The judgment was manifestly crooked on the face of the record. A judge can only dismiss a case that they have had the opportunity to consider but a judge cannot consider a case over which s/he lacks jurisdiction. So, a judge who rules that he or she lacks jurisdiction cannot thereafter decide to dismiss the same case. That is exactly what Peter Mallong did. Having accomplished such crookedness, he then went on to award punitive costs against me.

It was this kind of casuistic and crooked jurisprudence that emboldened el-Rufai and his ilk to routinise the persecution of Nigerian citizens by abduction under cover of law. I was lucky. Steven Kefas was not. Gloria Ballason’s tenacity and an international campaign eventually enabled to Steven to make bail after 162 days in pre-trial detention in Kaduna prison.

According to Steven, while he suffered prolonged pre-trial detention for an imaginary crime framed against him for being a government critic, he witnessed kidnappers caught in the act being released  without charges. Steven’s explanation is that: “What the oppressive elites do in Nigeria is that they will hire rogue lawyers to help them draft all manner of petitions to get critics and ‘enemies of the government’ abducted and locked up….”

This appears to be the perfect description for what is happening in an ongoing case involving the prosecution of Precious Eze, Olawale Olurotimi, Rowland Olonishuwa and Seun Odunlami before the Federal High Court in Lagos. The accused are all bloggers who run different platforms as citizen journalists or aggregators.

On 19 September, 2024, Country Hill, a law firm acting on behalf of Guarantee Trust Holding Company (GTCO) and its CEO, Segun Agbaje, wrote a petition in which they complained against the accused for what they called “acts of cyberbullying, criminal extortions (sic) and conducts (sic) likely to cause a breach of public peace” arising reportedly from material published on their blogs about Guarantee Trust Bank (GTBank). Importantly, the complaint omitted any mention of the sums that any of the suspects allegedly extorted or sought to. Subsequent investigation by the police showed clearly that upon the material being brought to their attention by intermediaries, the suspects had voluntarily pulled down the publications complained of.

Acting on this petition, nevertheless, the police promptly arrested and detained Precious Eze and Olawale Olurotimi, both of whom have been held in pre-trial custody since then. By the date you read this, each of them would have been in pre-trial custody for over 91 days. That is more than double the maximum duration of 42 days of pre-trial custody allowed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

It took the police just four days to conclude investigation. Michael Abu, the Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) who led the investigation into GTBank’s petition, wrote in his report of 23 September 2024 with reference to Precious Eze and Olawale Olurotimi that “these types of people be used as scapegoat” and recommended that they be “charged  to court for the offence (sic) of conspiracy, cyberbullying, attempt to extort money through fraudulent means and conduct likely to cause the breach of peace.”

On 14 October, the police re-arraigned them. Ten days later, the amended charges filed against them included six counts of cyberbullying and two each of conspiracy and extortion. To prosecute them, GTBank secured the “fiat” of the Inspector General of Police to instruct a high-powered team of ten lawyers, including three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs). This is a classic example of “oppressive elites” capturing the criminal process for destructive purposes against poor citizens.

Until now, the people who orchestrate these kinds of travesties and their judicial and legal co-travelers have enjoyed earthly impunity. Judges like Peter Mallong made this possible. The one lesson, however, of the Dele Farotimi case is that citizens now have the wherewithal to make these kinds of perversion of the legal and criminal process costly for those who orchestrate them.

In this case of Precious Eze and Olawale Olurotimi, that should be even moreso, given that the travesty is procured at the instance of a commercial and corporate actor. We are both citizens and customers. In this dual capacity we have the muscle to resist the determined conspiracy of politicians and corporates who seek to muzzle and destroy an informed and responsible civics. It is not too late for GTBank to retrace its steps.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

By Muhammadu Abubakar Rimi

Forty-three years ago, the late Muhammadu Abubakar Rimi, the former governor of Kano State, presented this paper in remembrance of his slain political adviser. The paper was prophetic because the issues it raised are with us today.

This paper is dedicated to a patriot, a nationalist, a Pan-Africanist, a teacher, a broadcaster, a colleague. It’s dedicated to my late political adviser, Dr. Bala Mohammed, who was assassinated in an organised, premeditated violence aimed at halting the wheel of progress in Kano State on Friday, July 10, 1981.

The subject matter of his assassination and the nature of emerging neo-fascist regime calls for this paper. The level of composition would be a critique of this emerging system. The unit of analysis is Nigeria. The approach is a combination of theory and fact, logic and history. The purpose is to analyze and make it possible to understand the nature of a neo-fascist regime and its common tendencies. Fascism has many faces, it can be dictatorship of the extreme right, or totalitarianism which is a collectivistic system of government in which system of control is exercised over all economic, political and social activities.

Both definitions reject liberal democracy. Both present a return to an authoritarian system of power elite. It’s based on exaggerated nationalism with an organised system of terror and propaganda. Fascism, in its modern form can be traced to Mussolini’s Italy. But fascism per se and authoritarianism are as old as human history. In modern times, it’s akin to Hitler’s Germany, Baby Duval Doc’s Haiti and contemporary Marco’s Philippines. The Fascists believe that their political party should have complete control of the country. The intellectual tradition of Fascism is from Hegelian tradition that emphasizes the power of state and the citizens blind obedience to it.

Today, that tradition is anti-socialist, anti-liberal and anti-intellectual. And in the context of Nigeria, neo-fascism is in league with feudalism and in opposition to everything that is progressive. Neo- fascism is a replay of fascism in an official non-fascist setting. That is, the constitutional guarantee of the land may be presidential or parliamentary, in which cases democratic, but the power play by the power brokers at the helm of affairs is fascist.

The functions dispensed in economics, politics and culture are neo-fascist. There is no concentrated programme for progressive economic development in a neo-fascist regime. Instead, the economic system is subordinated to the political ends of small power elite. The principle of terror(police brutality) is the chief cant phrase of the time as individuals are submerged, brutalized, terrorized and sometimes murdered. It is in remembrance of a colleague murdered in pursuit of neo-fascist action and the cause which he lost his life that gave rise to this seminar and this paper. Neo-fascism relies heavily on private ownership of property but denies the equality of men in the process while emphasizes class and racial distinction. It maintains that one ethnic group or class is superior to the others and is therefore ordained to rule. It disseminates this propaganda in public media in order to indoctrinate the people and coerce them into submission.

Neo-fascist Symptoms: The government is unnecessarily aggressive and coercive,
very insensitive to and intolerant of opposition. It’s characterized by suppression of critical information that is not in its favor. It creates superficial conflict and crisis( where there is none) only to deflect people’s concern for the real issue in the regime.

Emphasis is placed on stability induced through terror while their conscious actions generate unconscious instability. Power elite resist social change and alternatively vouch to retain the pattern that continuously reproduces their kind. They crack down on rival political parties and relentlessly plot to destabilize the constituted authorities of rival state governments. There is an attack on the press, political entities, critics and government that hold contrary points of views from those who forced or rigged themselves into power.

Psychology of Neo-Fascism: In the case of Nigeria, this attack emanates from the sensibility that the masses are aware of the government’s wrongdoings ( like the Abuja contracts, the foreign policy blunders; the mismanagement of the economy; the corruption at the N.ET ( Nigerian External Telecommunications), NEPA, Central Bank and Ribadu Road; the incompetence in government, the illegal deportation of Shugaba Darman, the Revenue Bill, the Bakolori Massacre, the misapplication of police power and innumerable misdeeds which go beyond pardon. But the masses of the people know these neo-fascist acts of the NPN Federal Government… A government that comes to power through election rigging must feel insecure, resort to violence and terror as a means of intimidating the masses to induce subservience.

The intimidated masses are subjected to feelings of helplessness and insecurity transmitted by neo-fascist government… the illogical 2/3 of 19=12(states) of 1979 Presidential election defies all sensible reasoning. The character of irrationality of a neo-fascist calculation is the induced justification based on non-logical action. That action was justified right from the very cradle of our presidential democracy. It’s not only the actions, nor the methods of actions themselves that are repressive, the consequences ( products) of both the actions methods are far more so…

The consequences have been a bad government that governs not by the collective conscience or the will of the people but by the sentiments of its few party patronages; the regime that uses carrot and stick approach to gain temporary sympathy from an unwilling people can’t sustain public support. The killers ( of democratic ideals) whose passion for greed and thirst for destruction…

We thought the military government was corrupt relative to time and space of its regime. If the military in 13 years failed to produce a higher critical mass of millionaires than the civilian government in 2,3/4 years, then by all logical inferences one has been more corrupt than the other. Of course, the production of millionaires in most countries takes more than 13 years. It’s only in Nigeria that an unaccountable number have been produced in the past 2,3/4 years. We have no ill-feelings towards their production since Nigeria is supposed to be operating free economy but we have misgivings towards the method of their proliferation, the circumstances under which they grow up and the socioeconomic and political consequences of their growth.

Dubious federal government awards have been largely responsible for the consequences of their multiplicity. The contracting partners both become millionaires with the signing of the contract papers without implementing the contract.

The socioeconomic consequences are:

(1) the skewed income distribution that allocates poverty to many, and millions of naira to a few.

(2) the deepening dependency of neo-colonialism and the rise in the ratio of disgruntled and dissatisfied Nigerians who advocate for a revolutionary change to bring to an end of wanton onslaught on the masses of the people and the national wealth which they collectively own.

Popular Ideological Ploy: One of the repressive tendencies of a neo-fascist regime is the deliberate use of popular ideology to manipulate and divert the frustration and anxieties of the mass following away from their objective source. The ideology of ‘green revolution’ is mass ideology because every Nigerian needs and knows the value of food.

But, what the average Nigerian doesn’t know is how much and for what purpose
the green revolution had become a fascist repressive agenda. Billions of Naira of the nations scarce resources has been deliberately wasted on importation of the cow-dung (called fertilizers) which we have more than enough for export in the Northern part of the country but have not been researched to utilize it massively as an alternative fertilizer…

The main principle of the green revolution is to create avenues for patronage to party supporters by importing and distributing foreign fertilizers, tractors and food supplies. The rush to import is not only dictated by the pro- imperialist petit bourgeoisie link with foreign counterpart but, also by the greed for economic and political domination of Nigeria by a fascist political party. The rush to create illicit fascist millionaires (out of contracting partners) who will be party financiers for continuous domination of Nigeria by a fascism supersedes the urge to take stock of alternatives.

The slogan of ‘fertilizer’ and ‘rice’ to boost the green revolution is sold to the masses on television and Radio Nigeria in different multi-linguistic group every night…But the propaganda on the public media to take government achievements in the field of agriculture to the people is not devoid of ideological content. The praise goes to the few fascists who have swindled the people and not the people who have been swindled. A massive nationwide campaign is stepped up like the one that has just been undertaken by the Federal Ministry for Information to indoctrinate and program the masses from frustration and anxieties into hope of raising expectation that will never be fulfilled.
Irrational Concept: Fascist ideology is characterized by emphasis on essentially irrational concepts such as, authority, obedience, honor, duty based on blind obedience and leadership principles…

Both the NPC and NPN have been authoritarian and therefore repressive. We could go back in history to recall the reigns of fascists. Though each historical epoch and its influences were different, the difference is more of time and place than of character and tendency. Personalities were mystified to induce blind adulation to the extent that it became a cult…
Feudal-Fascist Alliance…

The repressive role of the police since the return of the civil rule in Nigeria in October, 1979 in the name of maintaining law and order such as opening fire on demonstrating university students or the mass arrest of political opponents of the government at the center are the derivative of the official immoral conduct of an unpopular regime insisting on gaining support through brutal force.

Otherwise, can anyone explain brutality independent of official conduct of Mr. President and his NPN administration? How can anyone explain corruption, mismanagement, ineptitude and other repressive tendencies outside of the policies and actions of the NPN federal government? How can anyone defend the blunders in foreign policy and domestic affairs.

Foreign Policy Failure: The feelings of insecurity and helplessness spill over foreign policy. The conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy indicates the policy of realism. The foreign policy of realism is based on the concept of power capability to change and influence the outcome of events in the world. Nigeria has such power (economic, political, population, size and of course military). But what Nigeria does not have is the leadership that has the will and the right political bearing at the center to direct the affairs of this country.

By Martins Oloja

The case of Dele Farotimi, a lawyer and author, has raised concerns about the treatment of individuals by the police and courts in Nigeria, particularly in libel cases. Farotimi who has just been granted another bail was arrested and detained following a petition by Afe Babalola, a prominent lawyer, who alleged that Farotimi’s book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System,” contained defamatory statements against him. The petition led to Farotimi’s arrest by the Ekiti State Police Command, who then arraigned him before a magistrate court. The court granted an order remanding Farotimi in prison custody.

This curious case has sparked worries about free speech in a democracy. The arrest and detention of Farotimi have been seen as an attempt to silence him and stifle criticism of the Nigerian justice system. The fact that the libel case against Farotimi hasn’t been properly filed has also raised concerns about the misuse of the legal system to intimidate and harass individuals. Ultimately, this case highlights the need for greater protections for free speech in Nigeria and the importance of ensuring that the legal system is not used to silence critics and stifle dissent.

Meanwhile, as the civil society organisations including the media have been worried about the case that has led to continued detention of the lawyer is still dominating public discourse, there are some remarkable lessons about the same libel case by one of the world’s greatest complainants against the media, in fact, the President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump who actually tagged the U.S mainstream media as “the enemies of the people”. The former president actually sued a major television network ABC News and here are some of the outcomes so far all of us including the elder statesman, Aare Afe Babalola can learn from.

The recent $15 million libel settlement between Donald Trump and ABC News is a significant development that offers valuable lessons for media outlets, politicians, and the public. At the heart of the dispute was a comment made by George Stephanopoulos, claiming that Trump was found liable for rape, which was said to be inaccurate.

‘Significance of the Settlement’
The settlement is a substantial win for Trump, who has long accused mainstream media of bias and defamation. The $15 million payout, along with an apology and an editor’s note from ABC News, demonstrates that media outlets can be held accountable for inaccurate reporting. This settlement also highlights the challenges of reporting on high-profile individuals, particularly in today’s polarised media landscape. The case serves as a reminder that even slight inaccuracies can lead to costly legal battles and reputational damage.

‘Lessons for media outlets’
There are significant lessons for media outlets and media law scholars in this regard:
Accuracy is paramount: The settlement emphasises the importance of accuracy in reporting. Media outlets must ensure that their reporting is thorough, accurate, and unbiased to avoid costly lawsuits.
Clear apologies and corrections: ABC News’s apology and editor’s note demonstrate the importance of clear and prompt corrections. Media outlets must be willing to acknowledge and correct mistakes to maintain credibility.
Understanding of legal nuances: The case highlights the importance of understanding legal nuances and complexities. Media outlets must ensure that their reporting accurately reflects the complexities of legal cases.

Lessons for Politicians

Consequences of litigation: The settlement demonstrates that litigation can have significant consequences, financially and can affect reputation. Politicians must be cautious when pursuing legal action, as it can backfire and damage their reputation.
Importance of media relations: The case highlights the importance of maintaining positive relationships with media outlets. Politicians must work to build trust with journalists and media outlets to avoid misreporting and defamation.
Thick skin and strategic communication: Politicians must develop a thick skin and strategic communication skills to navigate the challenges of modern media. This includes being prepared to address inaccuracies and misinformation promptly and effectively. There may not be any smooth relationship between Trump and the mainstream media in his second term as Elon Musk, Trump’s most trusted digital media baron, has already declared the mainstream media persona non grata in the new media ecosystem in the United States.

Broader Implications

The settlement has broader implications for the media landscape and the relationship between politicians and the press. It highlights the challenges of reporting on high-profile individuals and the importance of accuracy, fairness, and transparency in journalism.

In the main, the ABC News $15 million libel settlement to Trump serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible journalism and the need for media outlets to prioritise accuracy and fairness in their reporting.

The nexus between strategy of Trump and Babalola

The ABC $15 million libel settlement to Trump and Afe Babalola’s use of the court and police to detain Dele Farotimi, author of a book he claims defames him, may seem like unrelated cases, but they share some common lessons.

Power of libel laws: Both cases highlight the power of libel laws in holding individuals and media outlets accountable for false or damaging statements. Afe Babalola’s actions demonstrate that individuals can use libel laws to protect their reputation but without having to use the police to torture the accused, while the ABC settlement shows that media outlets can also be held liable for false reporting.
Importance of fact-checking: The ABC settlement payment to Trump emphasises the importance of fact-checking in journalism. Similarly, Afe Babalola’s case against Dele Farotimi highlights the need for authors and publishers to verify the accuracy of their content to avoid libel claims.
Consequences of false reporting*: Both cases demonstrate the consequences of alleged false reporting, which can lead to financial losses, damage to reputation, and even long-drawn litigation.
Need for media literacy: The ABC News settlement case underscores the need for media literacy and critical thinking in consuming information. The ABC News case, for instance highlights the importance of verifying information through reputable sources to avoid spreading misinformation.

In conclusion, while the ABC settlement payment to Trump and Afe Babalola’s case against Dele Farotimi may seem like unrelated cases, they share common lessons about the power of libel laws, the importance of fact-checking, the consequences of inaccurate reporting, and the need for media (law) literacy.

But Elder Babalola should also consider 10 reasons most leaders, politicians and business barons avoid defamation lawsuit:

Fear of scrutiny: Defamation lawsuits can lead to increased scrutiny of their activities, which may expose their corrupt and unethical practices.
Loss of reputation: A defamation lawsuit can damage their reputation, even if they win the case. The negative publicity surrounding the lawsuit can be detrimental to their business and personal interests.
Financial consequences: Defamation lawsuits can be costly, and the financial consequences of losing a case can be significant.
Fear of discovery: During a defamation lawsuit, the discovery process may reveal information that the corrupt and unethical barons would rather keep hidden.

Intimidation tactics: Corrupt and unethical barons may use intimidation tactics, such as threatening to sue for defamation, to silence critics and avoid accountability.

Lack of transparency: Unclean barons may operate in opaque environments, making it difficult for critics to gather evidence and build a strong case against them.
Influence and power: Corrupt barons may have significant influence and power, which can be used to silence critics and avoid accountability.

Fear of retaliation: Critics may fear retaliation from filthy barons, including physical harm, financial ruin, or damage to their reputation.
Limited access to justice: In some cases, corrupt barons may have significant resources and influence, making it difficult for critics to access justice.
Culture of impunity: In some environments, corrupt barons may operate with a sense of impunity, believing that they are above the law and that they can avoid accountability.

Meanwhile, appeals for Dele Farotimi to apologize to Afe Babalola before a proper trial are misguided and can undermine the principles of justice and free speech. Here are several reasons why:
Presumption of innocence: In any democratic society, an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By demanding an apology before a trial, Babalola’s supporters are essentially presuming Farotimi’s guilt.
Undermining free speech: The demand for an apology can be seen as an attempt to stifle free speech and criticism. Farotimi, as an author and lawyer, has the right to express his opinions and critique the justice system.

Lack of due process: A proper trial ensures that due process is followed, and both parties have an opportunity to present their cases. By demanding an apology before a trial, Babalola’s supporters are circumventing this process.

Apology as admission of guilt: An apology can be perceived as an admission of guilt. By demanding an apology before a trial, Babalola’s supporters are essentially asking Farotimi to admit to defamation without a proper investigation or trial.

Precedent for Intimidation: If Farotimi is pressured into apologising before a trial, it sets a dangerous precedent for intimidation and silencing of critics. This can have a chilling effect on free speech and open criticism.

Disregard for the rule of law: The demand for an apology before a trial disregards the rule of law and the principles of justice. It is essential to allow the legal process to unfold without external pressure or interference.

Let’s examine why libel case should not be treated as if we were going to war: Already, there are curiosities surrounding the claims by Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, that a younger lawyer, Dele Farotimi, defamed him in a book on the judiciary. For this, the police had invaded Farotimi’s chambers, assaulted his staff, threatened two of his lawyers with guns and, practically abducted the lawyer. He was first dragged in handcuffs before a Magistrate Court in Ado Ekiti, Chief Babalola’s hometown where he is a legend. The Magistrate first denied Farotimi bail. While the bail conditions were being argued, the Inspector General of Police Kayode Egebtokun had Farotimi brought from prison to a High Court to face new charges: cybercrimes. Another bail was granted in this case which Farotimi had not perfected at press time.

Then while still being held in prison, Babalola and his supporters filed more charges against Farotimi before courts in Abuja, Ibadan and Port Harcourt. The Babalola Chambers additionally, petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to remove Farotimi from the roll of Nigerian legal practitioners. But in the case of Donald Trump vs ABC News, the ABC Newsanchor, George Staphanopoulos who allegedly claimed that Trump was found guilty for rape wasn’t arrested by the U.S police high command, nor was the ABC News operations disrupted at any time before the influential news organisation opted for the settlement of $16m dollars. What if elder Afe Babalola had filed a lawsuit against Dele Farotimi without humiliating him, would that have made any difference? Why is the accused being tried in Ado-Ekiti at the instance of the accuser in a democracy? Is this a warning signal to those who would like to deconstruct and critique the current systemic malaise in the country? Let’s manage allegations of defamation like Trump and his supporters. The trial of Dele is becoming messy and complicated. Simplify and dignify it, AGF!