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!
