By Richard Akinnola
We have passed through this phase before and we know how it ended. A Lagos High court in 1989 awarded N6 million damages against Gani Fawehinmi for allegedly defaming two of General Babangida’s security Chiefs, Halilu Akilu and Kunle Togun. Shortly after, Gani was convicted for 12 months for alleged contempt.
The story didn’t end there. He challenged the defamation award at the Court of appeal which set it aside. See Gani Fawehinmi v. Haliru Akilu and anr (1994) 6 NWLR part 351. Similarly, his conviction was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
So, in this matter, l expect SERAP to challenge this decision at the appellate courts. This particular case is interesting because the two DSS claimants were never mentioned in the SERAP statement. They were never known until they filed a defamation suit that they felt defamed because SERAP said they stormed its office. And the court agreed with them.
More fundamentally, as Ebun Olu-Adegboruwa, SAN, one of the counsel of SERAP posited in his reaction to the judgment, “the judgment did not reflect the legal arguments canvassed in the case, especially on the legal status of DSS as to whether the agency established by law is DSS or SSS.
The court also did not consider the case of SERAP, as to whether public officers working in public institutions can sue for defamation on behalf of their organizations in respect of alleged wrong done to their agency in the course of discharge of their official duties.
Whereas the plaintiffs stated before the court that they are still under investigation by their employers to determine the propriety of their conduct in SERAP office, the judge proceeded to adjudge SERAP liable of libel without actual proof of the identity of the persons allegedly defamed.
In almost all defamation cases, damages for libel should be commensurate with the status and earnings of the plaintiff, in this case, public officers of DSS who did not even establish their ranks or salary scales before the court, were awarded N100M as bazaar! How much is their monthly salary?
The inconsistency and irony of this case is that the plaintiffs were sent on assignment with public funds and they turned around to sue to claim private damages from their public engagements. Now, who collects the damages, is it the plaintiffs or their employers?
The judge also awarded interest at 10% on the damages awarded when it was not a contract and no case for interest was proved by the claimants before the court.
As SERAP intends to appeal this strange judgment that has no precedence, it is very dangerous for our democracy as it can be used to silence NGOs.”
*Akinola is a lawyer, Editor and public affairs analyst.
