HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR JUDGMENT - fcthighcourt.gov.ng · CASE NUMBER: FCT/HC/CV/2100/2014 DATE:...
Transcript of HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR JUDGMENT - fcthighcourt.gov.ng · CASE NUMBER: FCT/HC/CV/2100/2014 DATE:...
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT MAITAMA – ABUJA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: JUSTICE SALISU GARBA
COURT CLERKS: JIMOH I. SALAWU & OTHERS
COURT NUMBER: HIGH COURT TWO (2)
CASE NUMBER: FCT/HC/CV/2100/2014
DATE: WEDNESDAY 27TH APRIL, 2016
BETWEEN:
HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR - PLAINTIFF
AND
1. VANGUARD MEDIA LIMITED )
2. MIDENO BAYAGBON ) - DEFENDANTS
Parties absent.
Stella Omole for the Plaintiff.
I.F. Chude appearing with E.F. Elam and T.S. Alfa for the
Defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel – The matter is for judgment.
J U D G M E N T
By a writ of summons and a statement of claim dated 11/9/2014,
the Plaintiff claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as
follows:
1. A Declaration that the publication of the Plaintiff in the
Defendant’s Vanguard Newspaper of Wednesday the
30/4/2014 of Volume 25 and No. 62133 at Page 34 thereof is
libellous and defamed the Plaintiff.
2
2. An Order for the Defendants to publicly apologize to the
Plaintiff and duly published in the Vanguard Newspaper and
any other Newspaper retracting the libellous publications of
the Plaintiff contained in the Vanguard Newspaper of
Wednesday the 30/4/14 of Volume 25 and No. 62133 at
Page 34 thereof.
3. An Order for damages in the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five
Hundred Million) for the Defendant’s libellous publication of
the Plaintiff which has injured the person, character, family
life and holds her out in odium of her religious belief and
devotion as a Muslim.
4. An Order for cost.
In proof of this claim the Plaintiff filed a 35-paragraph statement of
claim dated 6/8/2014, 24-paragraph Reply to the Joint Statement
of Defence; the said reply dated 26/11/2014 and called the
following witnesses.
The Plaintiff herself testified as PW1in her evidence-in-chief, PW1
adopted a 34-paragraph witness statement on oath dated
6/8/2014 as part of her evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the said witness statement on oath, the PW1
stated that the Defendants on Wednesday 30/4/2014 in Volume
25 of No. 62133 and at Pages 34 of the Vanguard Newspaper
published the following about her.
“The multiple award winning United Nations Ambassador,
Hajia Habiba Abubakar has lashed at President Jonathan for
3
taking a trip to Kano State while Nigeria was mourning the
death of more than 70 and abduction of more than 100
innocent Nigerians. She did this while inadvertently calling
for a military coup.
She reported says “Good luck Jonathan is insane over 2015
Elections that nothing matters to him any more” She also
contrasts him with his American counterpart, who cancelled
his plans for the days recently in order to pay respect to three
people were shot in a school.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-calling
lady who has been romantically linked with Nollywood’s
sexiest male actor John Iyke and Chude Mokeme,
especially considering that the United Nations (UN) picked
her last year as a peace and charity ambassador in
commemoration of the International Day of Peace”.
Paragraphs 14 to 33 of PW1’s Witness Statement on Oath dated
6/8/14 are reproduced thus:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in this case and I am well acquitted
with the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. That I practice and carry on business in landed properties
and I have transacted severally in properties both in
Nigeria and outside its shore.
3. That I come from the royal family of Late Alhaji Babba
Da’agundi, Sarkin Dawaki Mai Tuta, a kingmaker and
Senior Councillor in Kano State Emirate Council and the
4
title is held in our family till date by my brother, Alhaji
Aminu Babba Da’agundi.
4. That I am married to retired Ambassador A. Abubakar and
blessed with three children who are in their early youthful
age.
5. That I am a devout Muslim and have performed Hajj to the
Islamic Holy land, Medina, Saudi Arabia and in
furtherance of that the prefix, “HAJIA” is now attached to
my name.
6. That I am also the founder and major financier of a
charitable organisation, foundation for the Elderly and
Poor which has in sundry ways touched the lives of many
people deserving of assistance both in Nigeria and
outside of it. The Foundation does not receive or solicit for
assistance or donation.
7. That further to paragraph 6 hereof and in furtherance of
our charitable activities and lives touched around the
World, I was conferred with the United Nations’
Ambassador for Peace and Charity in commemoration of
the United Nations, New York, United States of American.
8. That in furtherance of the award, I was interviewed by the
National Waves Newspaper and same was published in
Volume 3 of No. 48 of Monday the 23rd September, 2013
and a copy of the publication is annexed hereto and
marked A.
9. That further to paragraph 7 hereof I was also interviewed
and published in the Vyn Magazine No. 5 of
5
February/March, 2014 published by Vineyard News
Limited of England and also by the Eminence World
Magazine, Volume 8 of 2014. The Vyn Magazine and the
Eminence World are annexed hereto and marked B and
C.
10. That further to paragraphs 8 and 9 hereof the publications
copiously depicted my moral, family and religious values
and the publications were also widely circulated and
read.
11. That I know the 1st Defendant as a media and newspaper
publishing company operating in Nigeria and the 2nd
Defendant is the Editor of the Vanguard Newspaper
published by the 1st Defendant.
12. That the 1st Defendant’s newspaper, the Vanguard is a
national daily newspaper which is widely circulated and
read in Nigeria and around the world. The newspaper is
also accessible on the internet (Worldwide Web).
13. That the Defendants on Wednesday the 30th April, 2014 in
Volume 25 of No. 62133 and at Pages 34 of the Vanguard
Newspaper published the following about me:
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar has lashed at
President Jonathan for taking a trip to Kano State while
Nigeria was mourning the death of more than 70 and
abduction of more than 100 innocent Nigerians. She
did this while inadvertently calling for a military coup.
6
She reported says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over
2015 Elections that nothing matters to him any more”.
She also contrasts him with his American counterpart,
who cancelled his plan for the day recently to pay
respect to three people were shot in a school.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chidi
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
Ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
14. That further to paragraph 13 hereof the Defendants’
publication was widely circulated and read in Nigeria and
around the world and in furtherance thereto my person
and image has been defamed.
PARTICULARS OF DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”
7
15. That further to paragraphs 13 and 14 hereof, the
Defendants’ publications portray me as having or
having had emotional and sexual relationships with Jim
Iyke and Chude Mokeme.
16. That the Defendants’ publications portray me as lacking
moral chastity to express my views on the state of
government in Nigeria.
17. That the Defendants’ publication further portrays me as
lacking moral character and undeserving of the United
Nations Ambassadorial award conferred on me.
18. That the Defendants publication has also humiliated me in
my Islamic religious beliefs and devotion as a religiously
unchaste person having introduced me in the publication
with the prefix of “Hajia” which is used by Moslem women
that had performed the Hajj.
19. That an assertion of unchastity is grievous allegations in
Islam with severe punishment and in furtherance of the
Defendants publications; some of my fellow female Muslim
friends have distanced themselves from me.
20. The Defendants’ publications has ridiculed me and held
me out in contempt of my religious belief within the
Islamic communities.
21. That I believe the Defendants were reckless and malicious
in their publications and deliberately intended to injure me
and lower my estimation in the eyes of all those that may
know me and respect my contributions and were
8
unconcerned with the effect of their publications on my
husband and family.
22. That since my marriage under Islamic rite I have lived at
peace despite little challenges of marriages but since the
Defendants’ publication my peaceful family life has been
disrupted and my husband, Ambassador A. Abubakar has
been highly annoyed with me and angry over the
publications.
23. That the Defendants’ publications has negatively depicted
me to my family especially my only daughter, Khadija
who looks up to me as mother and her role model.
24. That my extended family members of the royal family of
the late Alhaji Babba Da’agundi, Sarkin Dawaki Mai Tuta,
Kano State feel greatly insulted and troubled with the
Defendants’ publications of me and on account of that
have called me with various degrading names.
25. That I feel seriously insulted and dragged through the mud
of disparagement by the Defendants’ publications and my
integrity as of little worth.
26. That the Defendants’ publications of me is in permanent
printed form and readable anywhere around the world
that the newspaper is circulated including public libraries.
27. That I am a Fellow of the Institute of Cooperate
Administration and have also won several awards
including:
(a) Best NGO of all time by Africans in Diaspora.
(b) Award winner of National Wave Magazine
9
(c) Award winner of City People Magazine
28. That many of my acquaintances read the Defendants’
publication and knew it was me as my photograph was
posted along with the publications and in furtherance
thereto I received several phone calls from different
people on account of it.
29. That on account of the Defendants’ publications, I have
been shunned by some of my fellow Muslim Women
friends and some of them also shyly relates with her on
account of the publication.
30. That I feel lowered in my own estimation of myself and by
my communities on account of the Defendants’
publication which was widely circulated and read by
many people all over the world.
31. That following the Defendants’ publication I am now very
conscious of my person following people staring at her
and whispering in lowered tone and which I attribute to
the Defendants’ publications.
PARTICULARS OF DAMAGES
(i) Lowered self estimation from Defendants’ malicious
publication.
(ii) Injury to Plaintiff’s psychic and psychology
(iii) Plaintiff being shunned and treated with disrespect
(iv) Plaintiff being ridiculed in her religious belief and
practices of Islam.
10
(v) Injury to Plaintiff’s family life as a result of disaffection
towards her on account of the Defendants’
publications.
(vi) The Plaintiffs is highly aggrieved with the Defendants
and their publications of her.
32. The Defendants publication is false and was recklessly
made and maliciously published which has greatly injured
me.
33. That I claim as per the Statement of Claim.
34. That I make this statement truthfully and in accordance
with the Oath Act.
The PW1 further adopted 26-paragraph additional witness
statement on oath dated 26/11/14 as part of her evidence-in-
chief.
Paragraph 3 to 25 is reproduced as follows:
“3 That the Defendants’ publications were defamatory
and there is nothing in the said publications that were
fair and accurate comment or constituting qualified
privilege as the Defendants have never sought an
audience or interviewed me on the area of their
publication before they published.
4 That arising from people’s relation to me after the
Defendants’ publications, I know that I had been
defamed in person and religious believes as a devout
11
Muslim woman and responsibly married and a mother
of young children.
5. That the Defendants at no whatsoever neither made
any efforts to correspond with me nor interviewed me
as to the existence or truth of “been romantically linked
with Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and
Chude Mokeme” before publishing same and that
constitutes serious indictment on my person, moral and
religious values and depict me as unchaste and that is
the impression that the Defendants conveyed to their
readers by the said publication.
6. That I was not aware of the several websites listed by
the Defendants or knew of their existence or their
publications of me until the Defendants called my
attention thereto in their defence.
The websites are:
(i) Ngozianwiro’s blogspot.com.
(ii) Africanmoviesnews.com
(iii) Naijagist.com.
(iv) www.Dailystar.com.ng
(v) www.gistmania.com.
(vi) www.nigeriafilms.com/news
i. www.modernghana.com/movie
ii. www.naijapals.com
12
ix www.kemifilani.com
x. www.stellaimokorkus.com.
xi www.nigeriafilms.com.
7. That further to paragraph 6 hereof nobody known to me or
otherwise has ever called my attention to any of the
publications disclosed at the listed websites or held me in
contempt or ignominy on account of the said websites
publications to the best of my knowledge.
8. That I do not know Chude Mokeme and has never had any
relationship with him whether platonic or intimate/romantic
and has never delivered any child for him or out of wedlock
or made or published any comment regarding him
whatsoever.
9. That I have never had sexual relationship or been
romantically linked with James Ikechukwu Esomugha alias
Jim Iyke or any other man outside my wedlock.
10. That I am aware from the 1st Defendant’s distorted
publication as I have never had any cosmetic surgery and
which is published at its website, wwwvanguardngr.com
dated the 27th July, 2012 that it interviewed the said Jim Iyke
and who stated, “I really don’t have anything personal with
her” and that is a clear denial by Jim Iyke of any intimate
relationship with me. The website publication dated the 27th
July, 2012 is annexed hereto and marked as A.
13
11. That by the help of Allah, I am a wealthy woman and in
furtherance of my blessings, I help people in need most
especially the poor and elderly through my charity
organization.
12. That further to paragraph 11 and with the aid of Jim Iyke’s
younger sister who is well known to me, Jim Iyke sought for
loan as investment into his company, Untamed Records
Limited and in furtherance thereto, I invested the sum of
N16,500,000 (Sixteen Million and Five Hundred Thousand
Naira) for two of my children.
13. That further to paragraph 12 hereof and in curious twist, the
said Jim Iyke was charged before an Abuja Chief Magistrate
Court for criminal breach of trust among other related
offences when the said company was none existent in
business and neither did he agreed to refunded my money.
14. That further to paragraph 13 hereof, the criminal prosecution
was discontinued upon pleas and undertaking of the said
Jim Iyke to installmentally refund the investment but when he
defaulted, I instituted a civil suit against him and same is
pending before the FCT High Court, Abuja and the Statement
of Claim in Suit No. CV/464/12 is annexed hereto as B.
15. That further to paragraphs 11 to 13 hereof, the 1st Defendant
severally published the distorted version of the incident and
criminal prosecution of the said Jim Iyke at its website on the
12th November, 2011 and 16th March; 21st April; 27th and 30th
14
June, 2012 and the copies of the publications are annexed
hereto and marked C.
16. That at no time whatsoever have I ever admitted to having
any relationship with Jim Iyke and it is also on record when
my Personal Assistant, Ms Kate Orgi as reported in the
National Life of 26th November, 2011 refuted any such
inordinate assertion of love affair between me and Jim Iyke.
The National Life Newspaper of the 26th November, 2011 is
annex hereto and marked as D.
17. That I have never had any sexual relationship with Chude
Mokeme or had any child with him or made any comment
relating to him or every had any intimate relationship with
any man other than my husband.
18. That further to paragraph 17 hereof, I am married to Alhaji
A.G. Abubakar and our marriage is blessed with three
children and the youngest, Nabil was born on the 6th May,
2006 and I have not been pregnant or delivered any child
thereafter.
19. That I am a respectful person and holds others in high esteem
and gives needed assistance within the limit of my resources
and has been variously published in national dailies and
magazine but never on account of an illicit affairs.
20. That further to paragraph 6 hereof, I put the Defendants on
notice to produce the registered address and proprietors of
the various websites whose publications they have claimed
15
to relied upon to defamed my image, character and
religious virtues.
21. That I know that websites are basically accessible to
computer literate persons and that a website can be hosted
by any person and they can post thereon any information of
their choice and without a visit to the websites, any
publication thereon would remain unknown.
22. That I also know that greater value is placed on newspaper
publications than websites gossip columns whose proprietors
are non verifiable.
23. That I also know that the 1st Defendant’s newspaper is of
repute and widely read and people would believe it that its
publications are better informed than merely derived from
and based on reliance of gossips columns or websites.
24. That the Defendants were high negligent, reckless and
malicious in their publications of me.
PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS AND MALICE
• The Defendants relied on unverifiable information for their
publications.
• The Defendants without verifications of information found on
websites published same as true information of me.
• The Defendants were nonchalant as to the effect of their
publication on me.
16
• The Defendants failed to call my attention to information
derived from sources other than from me before relying
thereon as the truth for their publication.
25. That I also know that this case is in furtherance of my
grievance at the Defendants and it is not accentuated with
frivolous, vexatious, embarrassing, scandalous, incompetent
and gold-digging motives and neither it is an abuse of the
process of court but it is the legitimate cry of my heart for
panacea.
In the cause of PW1’s evidence, the following documents were
admitted in evidence as exhibits.
1. Copy of the National Wares Newspaper dated Monday
September 23rd – October 6, 2013 – Exhibit A.
2. Copy of the Eminence Magazine – Exhibit B.
3. Copy of Vyn Magazine – Exhibit C.
4. Copy of Page 34 of the Vanguards Newspaper dated
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 – Exhibit D.
5. Vanguard Newspaper (Vol. 25: No. 62133) dated
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 – Exhibit E.
6. CTC of the Statement of Claim in Suit No. CV/464/12 – Exhibit
F.
7. Copy of the Vanguard on line Newspaper of 12/11/2011 –
Exhibit G.
8. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper of 16/3/2013 –
Exhibit H.
17
9. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper of 21/4/2012 –
Exhibit I.
10. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper of 27/6/2012 –
Exhibit J.
11. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper dated 30/6/2012
– Exhibit K.
12. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper of 27/7/12 –
Exhibit L.
13. Copy of Page 49 of the National Life Newspaper dated
Saturday 26/11/2011 – Exhibit M.
14. Certificate of Computer Usage – Exhibit N.
Under cross-examination, PW1 stated that she have a website,
the website Page is open to make people aware of what they
are doing and to make it open to the public.
PW1 further stated that she had no relationship whatsoever with
Jim Iyke; that the stories came up around either late 2010 or late
2011.
No re-examination, PW1 was accordingly discharged.
The PW2 is one Jibril Sambo. In his evidence-in-chief he adopted
a 15-paragraph witness statement on oath dated 6/8/14 as part
of his evidence. Paragraphs 2 to 14 of the said PW2’s statement
on oath are reproduced as follows:
“2. That I have always held Hajia Habiba Abubakar in high
respect and she has always comported herself in a dignified
and honourable manner.
18
3. That however on the 30th April, 2014 while reading the
Vanguard Newspaper and at pages 34 thereof, there was a
publication on Hajia Habiba Abubakar with her photograph,
thus:
HABIBA ABUBAKAR
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar has lashed at
President Jonathan for taking a trip to Kano State while
Nigeria was mourning the death of more than 70 and
abduction of more than 100 innocent Nigerians. She
did this while inadvertently calling for a military coup.
She reportedly says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over
2015 Elections that nothing matters to him any more”.
She also contrasts him with his American counterpart,
who cancelled his plans for the day recently in order to
pay respect to three people who were short in a school.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
4. That further to paragraph 3 hereof, I was perplexed by an
extraction of the publication which I considered to be
19
humbling of Hajia Habiba Abubakar’s personality and
everything I had known her to represent and that portion is
set out thus:
PARTICULARS OF DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar....
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
5. That further to paragraph 4 hereof, I considered it extremely
strange to assert against her that she is “romantically linked
with Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme” which I understood to mean she having affairs with
the two named individuals.
6. That I know that Hajia Habiba Abubakar is married to retired
Ambassador A. Abubakar and she is a devout Muslim and
blessed with three children.
7. That I also know that Hajia Habiba Abubakar’s business
includes land speculations which usually require integrity
and honourability and that she is also a philanthropist of
reasonable wealth.
20
8. That in furtherance of her charity she was honoured as the
United Nations Ambassador for Peace and Charity, 2013
which I believe is a position of great honour and goodwill.
9. That further to paragraph 6 hereof, I know as a Muslim that
only female who had visited the Holy Land, Medina on
pilgrimage are addressed as “Hajia” and pilgrimage is part
of Islamic injunction of tremendous significance for those that
can afford the journey.
10. That Hajia Habiba Abubakar having performed the
pilgrimage or Hajj and thereafter, as published by the
Defendants’ publication that she is having relationship with
men who are not her husband denotes explicitly unchastity
of adulterous nature.
11. That by the publication, she was belittled in my sight and
humiliated.
12. That I spoke with Hajia when I visited her family and she
denied the truthfulness of the Defendants’ publication and I
believed her as the allegation is too grave to be true.
13. That I believed Hajia Habiba Abubakar that she has suffered
enormously from the Defendants’ publication based on the
variously challenges attendants to the publication both in her
family and from her emotional turmoil and I saw the pain in
her as she spoke with me.
14. That the defendants’ publication ridiculed Hajia Habiba
Abubakar in my estimation as a very unserious religious
person and reckless in her value for her family”.
21
Under cross-examination, PW2 stated that he did not know
whether the Plaintiff have website. The Plaintiff never told him her
story with Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme; that his opinion will be
different if he is aware that the Plaintiff has relationship with these
2 people.
The PW2 also stated that he did not belief the story in the
Vanguard Newspaper.
No re-examination, PW2 was discharged.
Ibrahim Babba Da’agundi testified as PW3. In his evidence-in-
chief, he adopted a 16-paragraph witness statement on oath
dated 6/8/14 as part of his evidence-in-chief.
Paragraphs 3 to 13 of the said PW3’s statement on oath are
hereby reproduced thus:
“3. That on the 1st May, 2014 I received a call from retired
Ambassador A. Abubakar, husband of the Plaintiff who
inquired as to whether I had read the vanguard Newspaper
of the 30th April, 2014. I had not but promised to get a copy
immediately sensing that he was not in his usual jovial mood
and troubled about something.
4. That further to paragraph 3 hereof I went in search of the
newspaper and got a copy of the vanguard of Wednesday
the 30th April, 2014 Volume 25 of No. 62133 and at Pages 34
of the Vanguard Newspaper where I read the following of the
Plaintiff with her photograph published thereto:
22
“The multiple award winning United Nations Ambassador,
Hajia Habiba Abubakar has lashed at President Jonathan for
taking a trip to Kano State while Nigeria was mourning the
death of more than 70 and abduction of more than 100
innocent Nigerians. She did this while inadvertently calling
for a military coup.
She reportedly says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over 2015
Elections that nothing matters to him any more”. She also
contrasts him with his American counterpart, who cancelled
his plans for the day recently in order to pay respect to three
people were short in a school.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-calling
lady who has been romantically linked with Nollywood’s
sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme, especially
considering that the United Nations (UN) picked her last year
as a Peace and Charity ambassador in commemoration of
the International Day of Peace”.
5. That further to paragraph 4 hereof, I was speechless and felt
very sick on account of the publication regarding the Plaintiff
and I later returned the call of the Plaintiff’s husband who
expressed his anger and annoyance at the Plaintiff over the
Defendants’ publication of her.
6. That I called the Plaintiff on phone and she denied
knowledge of the truth of the publication but was also greatly
pained by the Defendants’ publication and the challenges it
had introduced into her life and matrimonial home on
account of face off with her husband.
23
7. That the Defendants’ publication was very disparaging of the
Plaintiff and I understand the Defendants’ publication as
accusing the Plaintiff of unchastity.
PARTICULARS OF DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar.....
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
8. That the Plaintiff is the daughter of the late Alhaji Babba
Da’agundi, Sarkin Dawaki Mai Tuta, a kingmaker and Senior
Councillor in Kano State Emirate Council, a very devote
Muslim and morally strict person and who brought up all of us
his children in like manner.
9. That the Defendants’ publication of the Plaintiff is that while
being a Muslim, who has performed the Hajj to the Holy
Land, whereof her description as “Hajia” she is unchaste.
10. That unchastity is a serious offence in Islam and to project the
Plaintiff as such is sacrilegious and has greatly lowered the
estimation of her person as Muslim.
11. That the Plaintiff has been married for so many years and her
children are already youths and to alleged that she is having
24
romantic relationships with sexiest men imports infidelity in
her marriage. That is contrary to her upbringing and is a
ground for the dissolution of an Islamic marriage.
12. That on account of the Defendants’ publication of the
Plaintiff, we have had several family meetings among
ourselves where some have stated that she has trampled the
family name and insulted the dignity of the family and that
she would not be welcomed in the family house in Kano.
13. That the Plaintiff has been belittled in our eyes on account of
the Defendants’ publication as against the joy and high
estimation of her over her award as a United Nations
Ambassador for Peace and Charity.
14. That the Plaintiff is well celebrated in our family on account of
her humanitarian gestures as she has a way of reaching out
to the needy and oppressed. She has been a very generous
person.
15. That I believe the Plaintiff that the Defendants’ publication is
untrue of her and is intended to smear her image”.
Under cross-examination, PW3 stated that the Plaintiff never told
him of any relationship with Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme. He was
not aware that the Plaintiff fought with Jim Iyke. PW3 stated that
his opinion will not be the same if he knew that the Plaintiff had
relationship with Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme.
No re-examination, PW3 was discharged.
25
Aliyu Suleiman Gurin testified as PW4. In his evidence-in-chief, PW4
adopted 18-paragraph witness statement on oath dated 6/8/14
as part of his evidence.
For ease of reference paragraphs 6 to 17 of the said statement on
oath is reproduced, thus:
“6. That on the 30th April, 2014 during my normal working hour,
someone had walked into the office with a copy of
Vanguard newspaper and while I was going through the
newspaper I saw a publication on Hajia Habiba Abubakar
and as a result, I went outside of the FCDA Secretariat gate to
buy a copy of the newspaper.
7. That further to paragraph 6 hereof, I read in the Vanguard
Newspaper of Wednesday the 30th April, 2014 Volume 25 of
No. 62133 and at Page 34 of the Newspaper, I saw the
photograph of Hajia Habiba and read the following
regarding her:
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar has lashed at
President Jonathan for taking a trip to Kano State while
Nigeria was mourning the death of more than 70 and
abduction of more than 100 innocent Nigerians. She
did this while inadvertently calling for a military coup.
She reportedly says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over
2015 Elections that nothing matters to him any more”.
She also contrasts him with his American counterpart,
26
who cancelled his plans for the days recently in order
to pay respect to three people were short in a school.
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
8. That I took the copy of the newspaper to Ambassador A.
Abubakar even though I knew that he might have seen it.
We were both very sad at the publication. He was also very
annoyed.
9. That It took me over a week of reading the publication further
to paragraph 7 hereof before I called on Hajia Habiba
Abubakar as I was ashamed of her based on the publication.
10. That further to paragraph 7 hereof, I understood the
publication to mean that Hajia Habiba Abubakar has had
sexual relationships with the two Nollywood actors.
11. That my understanding further to paragraph 10 hereof is
informed by the assertion that a woman is romantically
linked to sexiest men and I understood the Defendants’
publication that Hajia Habiba Abubakar has had or placed
herself in an unwholesome immodest posture with the men.
27
12. That further to paragraph 15 hereunder, I know Hajia Habiba
Abubakar as a devout Muslim and married with three
children of good standing and to publish such of her creates
the great impression that she is not a morally and religiously
responsible person and insensitive of the effect of her
conduct on her family.
13. That further to paragraph 12 hereof, I was not pleased with
her as she was reduced in my sight to a person unworthy of
respect and of inconsequential value despite paragraphs 2,
4 and 5 hereof.
14. That I am a married man and to describes a man’s wife as
done by the Defendants’ publication as being romantically
linked to another sexy man raise the inference of an
adulterous relationship and of unfaithfulness to her husband
and sufficient to occasion serious breach of trust and even
dissolution of the marriage.
15. That further to paragraph 7 hereof, I consider the portion
hereunder set out as being extremely grievous publication
against the person of Hajia Habiba Abubakar and her family
values, religious belief and social standing.
PARTICULARS OF DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS
“The multiple award winning United Nations
Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar......
28
Interesting reactions on blogosphere to this coup-
calling lady who has been romantically linked with
Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude
Mokeme, especially considering that the United Nations
(UN) picked her last year as a Peace and Charity
ambassador in commemoration of the International
Day of Peace”.
16. That further to paragraph 9 hereof, I believed Hajia Habiba
Abubakar that the publication against her in the Vanguard
Newspaper is untrue and recklessly and maliciously made
by the Defendants.
17. That I also believed her that she has suffered extensively on
account of the Defendants’ publication of her as been
unchaste”
Under cross-examination, PW4 stated that he is aware that the
Plaintiff has a website but did not know whether the website story
was loaded from the Plaintiff’s website. PW4 also stated that he is
aware that the Plaintiff did fought with Jim Iyke.
It is the evidence of PW4 that when he read the story he believe it.
No re-examination, PW4 discharged and that is the case of the
Plaintiff.
In defence of this claim the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed 25-
paragraph statement of defence dated 29/10/2014 and called a
witness.
29
Iyashere Donald testified as the sole witness for the Defence. In his
evidence-in-chief, the DW1 adopted a 31-paragraph witness
statement on oath dated 29/10/14 as his evidence.
In paragraph 7 of the said DW1’s statement on oath, DW1 stated
that the Defendants shall contend that this Honourable Court
lacks jurisdiction as the Defendants are not within the jurisdiction of
this Honourable Court.
In paragraph 12, DW1 stated that there is nothing offensive in the
Defendant’s publication about the Plaintiff or any other person as
contained in the Vanguard Newspaper of Wednesday the
30/4/14 in Volume 25 of No. 62133 and at Page 34 or any of his
publications.
It is the evidence of DW1 in paragraphs 13 and 14 that the said
words complained of are part of a fair and accurate report in
respect of a democratically elected government; that the said
notice was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and
made without any malice to the Plaintiff.
Particulars of Qualified Privilege
(a) The Plaintiff herein as alleged by her is a public figure and
therefore all that concern her are of public interest.
(b) The story in question was not about the Plaintiff morals but
about inflammatory statement calling for a military coup
against a legitimately elected government of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. The Defendants shall rely on the
Plaintiff’s website: www.elteriyandthe poor.org.
30
(c) The Defendants published the said story under a sense of
duty and without malice towards the Plaintiff.
(d) The publication was a fair and accurate report as the
Plaintiff Non-governmental organization work was placed
side by side thereby maintaining a balance.
(e) The Federal Republic of Nigeria is on the verge of turmoil
and insurgency is prevalent.
(f) The Defendants herein have a duty to the public to
disseminate information of public interest.
(g) The Defendants states that the electorate of Nigeria had a
common and corresponding interest in the subject matter
and publication of stories on the conduct of their
democratically elected government.
(h) The Defendants published the said story in the reasonable
and necessary protection of the public and its role as a
watchdog in the conduct of public affairs.
It is the e3vidence of the DW1 in paragraph 16 that the said
publication was not malicious and does not in any way discredit
the integrity, personality and fairness of the Plaintiff; that the
publication was a fair comment upon a matter of public interest,
which does not bear and can neither be understood to bear nor
was it capable of bearing or being understood to bear any of the
meaning or effect set out in the statement of claim.
Particulars of Fair Comments:
(a) In the website of africanmoviesnews.com “Chidi Mokeme
was reportedly in child scandal with Habiba – in-depth”
31
(b) In naijagist.com “Chude Mokeme battles depression after
paternity mess with Jim Iyke’s ex-sugar mummy”.
(c) In DailyStar.com.ng “Chude Mokeme in sex/child scandal
with Hajia Habiba Abubakar”.
(d) Actor Chidi Mokeme in sex and child scandal with
Habiba; a married woman; www.gistmania.com.
(e) The publication was a fair and accurate report of events
that took place and versions of all parties concerned were
published without malice, and made in pursuance of
public interest.
(f) The above publications have never been denied by the
Plaintiff and the parties.
In paragraph 18, the DW1 avers that the Defendants plead
justification and relied on Plaintiff’s website and several other
websites reports and correspondences.
Particulars of Justification
(a) The Plaintiff is in relationship with Chude Mokeme.
(b) The Plaintiff is not in denial of the child scandal with Chude
Mokeme. The Plaintiff herself in an interview said “...I know
Chude Mokeme and what is news about it? We both are
adults and therefore responsible for our actions...” The
Defendant pleads and relies on the Plaintiff’s interview
published in internet website naijagist.com.
(c) Several Websites refers to the Plaintiff as Jim Iyke’s
girlfriend. And same have not been denied by parties
concerned.
32
(d) The Plaintiff had in the past alleged that the said Jim Iyke
published a formal apology in the 1st Defendant
(Vanguard Newspaper) which is not correct.
(e) The Plaintiff, Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme have not
denied any of the various issues relating to them, as
evidenced in various websites. The Defendants plead and
relies on:
(i) www.nigeriafilms.com/news
(ii) www.modernghana.com/movie
(iii) ngozianwiro’sblogspot.com
(iv) www.naijapals.com
(v) www.kemifilani.com
(vi) www.stellaimokorkus.com)
(vii) www.elderlyandthe poor.org
(viii) gistmania.com
www.Dailystar.com.ng
(ix) www.nigeriafilmsw.com
In paragraph 29, DW1 stated that the Plaintiff in an interview
posted by the Plaintiff on her website admitted knowing Mokeme
and pontificated that whatever exist between two of them is
consensual between two adult. “A case of adults at play”.
In the cause of DW1’s evidence, the following documents were
admitted in evidence.
33
1. Copy of on line newspaper No. www.nigerianfilani.com.news
dated 23/10/14 – Exhibit O.
2. Copy of the on line paper www.modernghana.com.movie –
Exhibit P.
3. Copy of the website ngosianwirosblogsport.com – Exhibit Q.
4. Copy of www.kemifilani.com – Exhibit R.
5. Copy of www.stellaimokan.com – Exhibit S.
6. Copy of www.elderiyand.poor.com – Exhibit T.
7. Copy of gistmania.com – Exhibit U.
8. Copy of www.partyster.com.nig – Exhibit V
9. Copy of nigerianfilms.com website – Exhibit W.
10. Copy of Africamovies.new.com – Exhibit X.
Under cross-examination, DW1 stated that he did not know who
the story in the newspaper (Exhibit E Page 34) is referring to. He
edited Exhibit E before it was published. He believed in the truth
of the publication.
The DW1 further stated that the 1st Defendant being a juristic
person, as such it cannot possibly see the Plaintiff and Jim Iyke
and Chidi Mokeme in a romantic situation; that the conclusion
that the Plaintiff has romantic appear with Jim Iyke and Chide
Mokeme is derived from Exhibits Q – X. Exhibit T was downloaded
from the Plaintiff’s website.
It is the evidence of DW1 that the Defendants relied on Exhibit P
in writing the stories about the matter. The witness stated further
that he did not know the publisher of Exhibit P neither did he
know their source. DW1 also testified to the effect that he did not
34
also know Editors of Exhibits Q, R and X but know their website.
He maintained that the Defendants’ source of the publication is
the website.
No re-examination, DW1 discharged and that is the case for the
Defence.
The Defendant filed 14-page final written address dated
30/6/2015 wherein counsel formulated the following issues for
determination:
1. Whether having regard to the evidence before this
Honourable Court and the entire circumstances of the case,
the Plaintiff made out a case of libel against the Defendants.
2. Whether there are admissible evidence on record for the
defence of justification relied upon by the Defendants.
3. Whether the Defendants have made out a defence of
qualified privilege.
4. Whether or not having regard to the facts of this case the
Defence of fair comment was available to the Defendants.
On Issue 1, it is the submission that in an action for libel the onus is
on the Plaintiff to establish her case. See ILOABACHIE v
ILOABACHIE (2005) 13 NWLR Pt 943 Pg 736; OJEME v MOMODU
(1994) 1 NWLR (Pt 323) Pg 685 at 597 – 698.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not discharged the burden of
proof on her as to whether the alleged publication was false or
defamatory of her, the Plaintiff having failed to establish same.
35
On Issue 2, it is the submission that from the evidence before the
court, it was established that the Defendants’ publication was not
false. Court is referred to paragraph 16 of the Plaintiff’s Additional
Witness Statement on Oath.
Furthermore, during cross-examination, the Plaintiff in answer to
question relating to the interview in Exhibit M with the picture of
Jim Iyke, identified same and said as follows: “I denied having
relationship with Jim Iyke when the nightmare was going on and
he himself has denied having an affair with me...”
The above undisputed fact linking the Plaintiff romantically
predates the Defendants’ publications which was merely re-
echoed in 2014 in passing as an adjective.
It is submitted that the Defendants’ publication only referred to a
previous saga which has linked the Plaintiff with the said actors.
See A.I.B. LTD v ASAOLU) 2006) 5 WRN 35 at 44. Also the
Defendant relied on several website sources wherefrom several
documents were derived and tendered in evidence before this
Honourable Court and marked as Exhibits O – X respectively. See
case of THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ROSICRUCIAN ORDER
AMORC (NIG) v HENRY O. AWONIYI & ORS (1994) LPELR 3198 (SC)
Pg 1 at 5.
On Issue 3, it is the submission that the defence of qualified
privilege is available if a defamatory communication made on a
privileged occasion without malice or improper motive. The
privilege is destroyed only if the publication is actuated by malice.
36
From the totality of evidence before this Honourable Court,
nowhere was malice proved by the Plaintiff on whose onus the
onerous task lies.
The said publication was made on an occasion of qualified
privileged and made without malice to the Plaintiff. See A.I.B. LTD
v ASAOLU (Supra).
It is submitted that the Defendant had informed the court his
source of information. The publication in issue never said that the
Plaintiff had any affair with anybody, rather restricted itself to the
inalienable and uncontroverted fact that the Plaintiff is
romantically linked; which facts is not in dispute.
On Issue 4, it is the submission that the Defendants in proof of the
defence of fair comment tendered materials derived from several
website in evidence. Court is referred to the case of THE SKETCH
PUBLISHING CO LTD & ANOR v ALHAJI AZEEZ A. AJAGBEMIOKEFERI
(1989) LPELR – 3207 (SC) P. 1.
It is submitted that when the entire story in question as in the
instant case is read, the court will in all modesty find that there was
no intention to defame the Plaintiff, moreso as the story in question
adumbrated Plaintiff’s achievements alongside.
Social responsibility of the media is a fact judicially noticed. See
MAKINDE v OMASHONI (2010) 35 WRN P. 118 at 124. Court is
urged to dismiss this suit.
37
The Plaintiff filed 6-page final written address dated 24/7/15
wherein counsel formulated the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the Defendants’ contentions of lack of jurisdiction in
the court and defence of qualified privilege, justification and
fair comment have being sufficiently discharged by them as
to defeat the Plaintiff’s cause of action.
2. Whether the Plaintiff has proved her case of defamation as
to entitle her to judgment as per the reliefs claimed in the
case?
On Issue 1, it is the submission that the question of jurisdiction of a
trial court to entertain a case of defamation is determined by
where the defamation was published as there cannot be
defamation in the absence of publication. See MOHAMMED v
BABALOLA (2012) 5 NWLR 9Pt 1293) 395 at 438; OBI v ETIABA (2015)
6 NWLR (Pt 1455) 377 at 398.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff resides at and read the
Defendant’s defamatory publication of the Plaintiff in Abuja within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Honourable Court and this fact has
thereby vested jurisdiction in the court to entertain the Plaintiff’s
case.
On the issue of qualified privilege as raised by the Defendant, it is
the submission that the Defendant can only benefit from the
defence of a qualified privilege where it has acted honestly and
has diligently discharged the burden of true investigation of its
defamatory publication and this duty was well encapsulated in
38
the case of AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS (NIG) PLC v USENI (2015) 3
NWLR (Pt 1447) 464 at 486.
It is the contention of Plaintiff that the Defendant’s conclusion that
the Plaintiff is “romantically linked with Nollywood’s sexiest male
actors Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme” is comments derived or
made on the basis of the totality of their conclusions from Exhibits
O – X. The question that would therefore arise, is whether Exhibits
O – X is safe to be relied upon by the Defendants for such a
conclusive comment on the Plaintiff?
The DW1 admitted to not knowing the publishers of Exhibits O – X.
Exhibit T alleged to have being gotten from the Plaintiff’s
foundation website did not aver to any such “romantically linked”.
In fact, all the Exhibits of the Defendant portend of information
derived from sources which or whose identities were not stated.
Thus, they are all hearsays. See OKPA v STATE (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt
1424) 225 at 243; FRN v USMAN (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 13001) 141 at
160.
The Defendants have not exhibited the required diligence of
having a concrete evidence of the Plaintiff been romantically
linked to two sexiest men before their publication but simply
thrived on the unreliable information of hearsay from
unidentifiable sources.
It is submitted that for the defence of qualified privilege to avail
an applicant, it must be devoid of impurities highlighted in the
39
case of AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS (NIG) PLC v USENI (Supra) at 485 –
486.
It is the contention that the Defendants acted with malice in
relying on unverifiable sources of information which they should
have known to be false or required their further in-depth
investigation. See EKONG v OTOP (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1419) 549 at
577.
On the issue of the defence of justification, as raised by the
Defendants, it is the submission that it is an admission of the
libellous publication. See ISHAKU v AINA (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt 883)
146 at 169 – 170.
The Defendants in prove of their plea of justification has
emphatically stated at paragraph 13(a) of statement of defence
that the Plaintiff is in relationship with Chude Mokeme, however
they lost steam with the requirement of justification that the
standard of proof is absolute and not a mere assertion. See A.T.
(NIG) LTD v U.B.N. PLC (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt 11757) 360 at 377.
It is submitted that Exhibits O – X are very unreliable to establish the
truth envisaged in a defence of justification. See U.B.N. PLC v
OMIYI (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt 1176) 640 at 662.
On the defence of fair comment as raised by the Defendants, it is
submitted that a defence of fair comment would not survive in the
face of falsehood. See EKONG v OTOP (Supra) at 574.
40
The Defendants’ foundation for all of their defences are Exhibits O
– X and when subjected to the text of credibility and weight would
be found to be worthless as the rules of documentary evidence is
that it does not admits of extrinsic evidence. Exhibits O – X cannot
pass this test when questions of who are the makers, did the
makers had personal knowledge of the facts and if derived from a
third party, are the particulars of the third party provided, etc?
See ADEWALE v OLAIFA (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt 1330) 478 at 512; TUKUR
v UBA (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt 1343) 90 at 128.
It is submitted that the defences of qualified privilege, justification
and fair comment asserted by the Defendants have not been
discharged by them within any acceptable parameters known to
law as to defeat the Plaintiff’s cause of action. Court is urged to
discountenance the defences.
On Issue 2, it is the submission that the inference derivable from
the Defendants’ publication of the Plaintiff is that of unchastity
and it is defamatory to impute unchastity in a woman. See
ALAWIYE v OGUNSANYA (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt 864) 486 at 509.
The determination of whether words complained of are
defamatory or not is based on the reasonable man’s test of what
a reasonable man would ordinarily understood of the words. See
ISHAKU v AINA (Supra) at 175.
The affirmation of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has been
romantically linked with Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke
and Chude Mokeme was stated with an air of finality; that it is
41
true. This was not stated presumptively or speculatively. This is
affirmed at paragraph 11(e) of the statement of defence.
However, throughout the conduct of the trial, the Defendants
failed at leading any evidence to establish the certainty of the
“accurate reports of the events”.
Publication of defamation to one person is sufficient to constitute
the cause of action and the ingredient of publication would be
satisfied if the Plaintiff mention the means of publication as in this
case Exhibits D or E. See FAWEHINMI v AKILU (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt
351) 387 at 455.
It is the submission that the fair and natural meaning of the words
as published by the Defendants of the Plaintiff would strike a
negative meaning in the eyes of a reasonable man. Court is
referred to the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4.
Thus, the Defendant’s defamatory publication is worsen to
describe the Plaintiff a Muslim woman to be “romantically linked
to two sexiest men. The Plaintiff has being defamed and this is
evident and conclusive to any reasonable man reading the
publication.
It is submitted that the words complained of refers to the Plaintiff
and that the words were published to third parties. Court is
referred to the testimony of PW1 and the case of N.A.C.B. LTD v
ADEAGBO (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt 874) 551 at 573.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff has being defamed and court is
invited to so find and also the Plaintiff has sufficiently discharged
42
the burden of proof caste upon her in this suit. See N.A.C.B. LTD v
ADEAGBO (Supra) at 574.
It is the submission that the justification for award of damages is
injury to reputation which might continue for the life time of the
person defamed. See ALAWIYE v OGUNSANYA (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt
864) 486 at 514; SONIBARE v SOLEYE (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt 1155) 275
at 283. Court is urged to grant the Plaintiff’s reliefs.
The Defendant filed 6-page written reply on points of law dated
11/11/2015 wherein counsel by the defence of qualified privilege
stated that publication was made during a privileged occasion
when terrorist insurgency was at its peak in Nigeria and during
which the Plaintiff was calling for a military coup.
It is submitted that an alleged libellous publication is to be read as
a whole. See GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER, 10TH EDITION, Page
110 Paras 3.29; UBN v ORE DEIN (1992) 6 NWLR Pt 247 Pg 355.
It is stated that there is no portion in the Defendant’s publication
that suggests malice. The story was based on real facts which the
Plaintiff herself confirmed the existence of same; moreso, the
Plaintiff failed to discharge the onerous task on her of proving
malice. See M.T.S. LTD v AKINWUNMI (2009) 16 NWLR Pt 1168 Pg
633 at 651 – 652.
It is salutary that internet is a major source of information in this
present era of advancement in information technology (IT). It is
surprising that learned counsel to the Plaintiff referred to all the
exhibit tendered by the Defendants as hearsay; therefore the
43
case of OKPA v STATE (Supra) cited by counsel is inapplicable in
this case as the source of the Defendant’s story are basically
internet sources as quoted in the said publication which are
judicially noticed. See Section 115(4) and 124 of the Evidence
Act, 2011.
Furthermore, where statement is made by another person and it is
repeated by a person who is given evidence it is not hearsay to
prove that the statement was made as opposed to proving the
truth of the statement. See NWOBOSI v A.C.B. LTD (1995) 6 NWLR
(Pt 404) 658.
Learned counsel to the Defendant submitted that the case of
A.I.T. (NIG) LTD v UBN PLC (Supra) cited by the Plaintiff’s counsel is
inapplicable in this case as nothing is speculative in the evidence
of the defence which was corroborated by the Plaintiff.
It is submitted that the matter was one of public interest and the
comment was a fair inference from the facts. See MAKINDE v
OMAGBOMI (2010) 35 WRN 118 at 123.
Finally it is the contention that the Defendants have sufficiently
and adequately established through the various exhibits and the
plethora of cases in support of the defences of qualified privilege,
justification and fair comments in defending the case against the
Defendants and that the Plaintiff has failed to prove her case.
Court is urged to dismiss the case of the plaintiff.
Now, on the part of the court, after a careful consideration of the
processes filed, evidence of witnesses and submission of learned
44
counsel on both sides, I adopt the issues formulated by the
Plaintiff’s counsel as the issues for determination by this court, i.e.
1. Whether the Defendants contention of lack of jurisdiction in
the court and defence of qualified privilege, justification and
fair comment have being sufficiently discharged by them as
to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action.
2. Whether the Plaintiff has proved her case of defamation as
to entitle her to judgment as per the reliefs claimed in the
case?
On Issue 1, it is clear that in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the statement
of defence and paragraph 7 of DW1’s statement on oath, the
Defendants contended that this court lacks the jurisdiction to
entertain this suit on the ground that the 1st and 2nd Defendants
are not within the jurisdiction of this court. However, the
Defendant’s counsel failed to address this issue in his final written
address. How be it, it is trite law that the jurisdiction of a court is
the pivot of any valid adjudication by the court and without it the
whole proceedings is an exercise in futility and a nullity. See
GOMBE v P.W. (NIG) LTD (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 402) 402.
It is settled law that in the tort of defamation or libel is committed
where the publication is read by a third party and not where it
was written or authored, or where the act complained of took
place. Jurisdiction in this sense will not be determined by where
the alleged defamatory statement was issued or made alone or
where the Plaintiff or Respondent resides, but any place where the
45
alleged defamatory statement is read. See MOHAMMED v
BABALOLA (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 395 at 438.
In the light of the above, I hold the firm view that this court have
the jurisdiction to so entertain this suit. The issue of jurisdiction
raised by the Defendants therefore fails.
The issue of Defence of Qualified Privilege
The Defendants as a newspaper publishing company can only
benefit from the defence of a qualified privilege where it has
acted honestly and has diligently discharged the burden of true
investigation of its defamatory publication. See AFRICAN
NEWSPAPERS (NIG) PLC v USENI (Supra).
It is settled law that qualified privilege operates as a defence only
to protect statements which are made without malice. Malice in
the context of qualified privilege could mean an attempt to use
the privileged occasion as an excuse to make defamatory
statements or it could mean recklessness as to whether the
statements made were true or not. If the defendant honestly
believed that the statements were true when he made them,
there will be no malice. GOMBE v PUNCH (NIG) LTD (1999) 5 NWLR
(Pt 602) 303.
Now the question that readily comes to mind is whether the
Plaintiff was able to prove malice against the Defendants for the
said publication.
46
In paragraph 21 of the PW1’s witness statement on oath dated
6/8/14 the Plaintiff stated thus:
“That I believe the Defendants were reckless and malicious
in their publications and deliberately intended to injure me
and lower my estimation in the eyes of all those that may
know me and respect my contributions and were
unconcerned with the effect of their publications on my
husband and family”
Also in paragraph 24 of the PW1’s additional witness statement on
oath dated 26/11/14 the PW1 stated thus:
“That the Defendants were highly negligent, reckless, and
malicious in their publication of me.
Particulars of Negligence, Recklessness and Malice:
• The Defendants relied on unverifiable information for
their publications.
• The Defendants without verifications of information
found on websites published same as true information
of me.
• The Defendants were nonchalant as to the effect of their
publication of me.
• The Defendants failed to call my attention to information
derived from sources other than from me before relying
thereon as the truth for their publication”.
47
The above is what the Plaintiff proved with respect to malice on
the part of the Defendants.
It is trite law that in order to destroy or neutralize the defence of
qualified privilege, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove malice.
See ILOABACHIE v ILOABACHIE (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 943) 695.
As rightly stated by the Plaintiff’s counsel, the defence of qualified
privilege to ensure in favour of the Defendants, they have the
obligation to establish that their comment was honestly made and
is a product of careful investigation.
In paragraph 15 of DW1’s statement on oath, he stated that the
publication was made contemporaneously with interest blog
nogozianwiro’sblogsport.com and Plaintiff’s website and
numerous other website and without any malice towards the
plaintiff.
Under cross-examination, DW1 also stated that he did not know
who the story in the newspaper Exhibit E Page 34 is referring to
and that he believe in the truth of the publication.
DW1 further stated that the Defendants has no material story of
the Plaintiff, Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme in a romantic situation.
The Defendant’s conclusion that the Plaintiff has romantic
appeared with Jim Iyke and Chude Kokum is derived from Exhibits
O – X.
It is the law that the onus of proofing express or actual malice is on
the Plaintiff who must plead and establish that the Defendant did
48
not believe the truth of what he published of and concerning her.
See UKO v MABABA (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt 704) 475 Para B.
In the instant case, the Defendant had testified before the court,
his source of information and during cross examination he
confirmed that he believed the story, and that same was
investigated.
It is my firm view that the Plaintiff was unable to discharge the
onerous task bestowed on her of proving malice. In the case of
M.T.S. LTD v AKINWUNMI (Supra) the court held thus:
“In the defence of qualified privilege, the statement
complained of in a publication may not have been
established to be true but the falsity of the statement is not
conclusive evidence of malice. It is a factor taken into
consideration in order to determine whether malice has
been established the failure of the Defendant to investigate
the truth or falsity of the statement before making it is also not
prima facie evidence of his being malicious nor is it
evidence of actual malice. Thus in the defence of qualified
privilege, the defamatory matter need not be true, provided
there is not as such reckless as would be indicative of
malice”.
In the light of the above, I hold the view that this issue be resolve in
favour of the Defendants.
On the defence of justification
49
It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendants in prove of
their plea of justification has emphatically stated at paragraph
13(a) of their statement of defence that “the Plaintiff is in
relationship with Chude Mokeme”, however they lost steam with
the requirement of justification that the standard of proof is
absolute and not a mere assertion; that the averment of the
Defendants are speculative.
However, a careful consideration of the evidence adduced
before this court, one would come to terms that the Defendant’s
publication was based on the earlier publications made on the
subject matter. In fact paragraph 16 of the PW1’s additional
witness statement on oath, the Plaintiff stated that her personal
assistance Ms Kate Orgi in the National Life of 26th November 2011
refuted any such inordinate assertion of a love affair between her
and Jim Iyke.
It should be noted that the alleged offending publication of the
Defendants was on 30/4/2014 (Exhibit E). And going by Exhibits O
to X, it goes to show that there has been news of an alleged link
between the Plaintiff and Jim Iyke.
Furthermore, under cross-examination of PW1, in the answer to
question relating to the interview in Exhibit M with the picture of
Jim Iyke, she stated as follows: “I denied having any relationship
with Jim Iyke when the nightmare was going on and he himself
has denied having an affair with me in several newspapers
including the Vanguard Newspaper. The stories came up around
either late 2010 or late 2011”
50
It is trite law that the defence of justification is complete defence
in a case of libel. See A.I.B. LTD v ASAOLU (Supra).
It is without doubt that going by Exhibit M, O – X, the Defendants’
publication only referred to a previous saga which has linked the
Plaintiff with the said actors.
In line 15 Page 6 of Exhibit O, it is stated as follows:
“The controversial Hajia has released an official statement on
this scandal while Chidi Mokeme keeps salient.
Read her statement below:
“My attention was drawn yesterday evening to a story
making headlines for the past few days. I went through what
has been posted in many different ways. It is very sad that
people can go to any length to write whatever they feel like
about just everybody or everything.
I know Chude Mokeme and so what is news about it? We
both are adults and therefore responsible for our actions, and
I don’t think the media should be our referee?
It is on record that the Plaintiff never in any way denied or
controverted making the said statement.
Justification or truth is a defence in an action for libel or slander.
Thus, if the statement made about the Plaintiff is true, there can
be no action for defamation. The burden of proof is on the
Defendant to prove that the statement made is true, rather than
51
on the Plaintiff to prove that it was false. See HAMILTON v AL
FAYED (No. 4) (2001) CMLR 15.
In the instant case the Defendants’ publication in issue never said
that the Plaintiff had any affair with anybody, instead the
Defendants’ publication only referred to a previous saga which
has linked the Plaintiff with Jim Iyke and Chude Mokeme.
At this point, it is pertinent to reproduce the Headings of Exhibits O
to X as follows:
Page 1 of Exhibit O is headed “Chude Mokeme battles
Depression After paternity mess with Jim Iyke’s ex sugar
mummy” dated 24/9/13.
Page 5 of Exhibit O is headed “Chude Mokeme’s paternity,
Baby scandal: Habiba Abubakar speaks up “we’re Both
Adults” dated 5/8/13.
Exhibit P is headed Chude Mokeme and Habiba Abubakar in
Big Fight.
Exhibit Q is headed “Jim Iyke’s Ex girl friend – Habiba
Abubakar speaks + Jim loses mom” – dated 5/4/2014.
Exhibit R is headed “Chude Kokum in Sex/Child Scandal with
Hajia Habiba Abubakar (Photo).
Exhibit S is headed “Exclusive:- Hajia Habiba Abubakar
delivers Baby boy for Actor Chude Mokeme” – dated 1/8/13.
52
Exhibit T is headed Habiba Abubakar calls for Military Coup
in Nigeria.
Exhibit U is headed “Actor Chude Mokeme in Sex and Child
Scandal with Habiba; A married woman”.
Exhibit V is headed “Chude Mokeme in Sex/Child Scandal
with Hajia Habiba Abubakar – dated 2/8/2013.
Exhibit X is headed Chude Mokeme reportedly in Child
Scandal with Habiba – dated 2/8/13.
The Plaintiff never denied the existence of Exhibits O to X instead
learned counsel contended that they are hearsay and therefore
inadmissible in law on the ground that the Defendant fails to state
the sources of the information contained therein.
Well, it is a matter of common knowledge that internet is a major
source of information in this present era of advancement in
Information Technology (IT).
It is doubtless to say that Exhibits O to X are publication from the
internet and therefore computer generated evidence. All that
the Defendant is to do is to comply with Section 84 of the
Evidence Act. The Defendant did in fact comply with the said
provision of the Evidence Act. See also Section 124 and 115(4) of
the Evidence Act.
I am of the considered view that going by the combined
provisions of Section 84, 115(4) and 124 of the Evidence Act Exhibit
53
O to X being computer generated evidence are not hearsay
evidence, I so hold.
Furthermore, when statement is made by another person and it is
repeated by a person who is given evidence, it is not hearsay to
prove that the statement was made as opposed to proving the
truth of the statement. See NWOBOSI v A.C.B. LTD (1995) 6 NWLR
(Pt 404) 658.
Issue of Fair Comment
It is settled law that for the defence of fair comment to be
sustained, it must be squarely being proved. When a Defendant
has as his defence that the comment is a fair one, he is saying no
more than that the story was based upon facts which were in
existence when the comment was made. The defence of fair
comment will avail a Defendant if he can show that he has only in
good faith, expressed his opinion based on facts truly stated on a
matter of public interest. See VANGUARD MEDIA LTD v OLAFISOYE
(2011) 14 NWLR (Pt 1207) 207 at 247.
The revered jurist Lord Denning (MR) in his book “What Next in
Law” London Butterworths (1982) at Pg 186 – 187 had this to say:
“In considering a plea of fair comment, it is not correct to
canvas all the various imputations which different readers
may plot upon the words.
The important thing is to determine whether or not the writer
was actuated by malice. If he was an honest man
54
expressing his genuine opinion on a subject of public interest
then no matter that his words conveyed derogatory
imputations; no matter that his opinion was wrong or
exaggerated or prejudiced and no matter that it was badly
expressed so that other people read all sorts of innuendos
into it; nevertheless, he has a good defence of fair comment”
In the instant case it is the evidence that the Defendants merely
published or re-echo facts that were already in the public domain
as person Exhibit O to X. It is clear that when the entire story in
question is read, it infers that there was no intention to defame the
Plaintiff, moreso as the story in question adumbrated Plaintiff’s
achievements alongside.
In the light of all stated above, I am of the considered view that
the Defendants have sufficiently and adequately established
through the various exhibits and case law, the defences of
qualified privilege, justification and fair comments.
On Issue 2, it is my firm view that having resolve Issue 1 in favour of
the Defendants, it will amount to an exercise in futility to delve into
this issue.
My understanding of the whole situation as per the evidence
before the court is that the alleged defamatory statements were
allegedly initiated by the owners of the websites (See Exhibits O –
X) and commented on by the Defendants.
55
To my mind the person(s) the Plaintiff should have gone after for
claim of damages are the originators of the alleged defamatory
statement.
It should also be pointed out that, by this decision of the court in
this matter, the court did not confirm the said allegations made
against the Plaintiff as contained in Exhibits O – X as that was not
presented for trial.
Accordingly, the Defendants having succeeded in the defences
of qualified privilege, justification and fair comment, the case of
the Plaintiff must as a matter of law fall like a pack of card.
Plaintiff’s case is hereby dismissed for lacking in substance.
(Sgd)
JUSTICE SALISU GARBA
(PRESIDING JUDGE)
27/04/2016
Defendant’s counsel – We thank the court for the well-considered
judgment.
Plaintiff’s counsel – We are most grateful.
(Sgd)
JUSTICE SALISU GARBA
(PRESIDING JUDGE)
27/04/2016
56