The levity with which some Nigerians level accusations at others, flippantly throwing wild allegations that they obviously can’t prove around, is proof to me that many take it as a joke, forgetting that real lives, careers and reputation are involved.
By my reckoning, many people don’t take defamation seriously. That is so for a few reasons. Too many people get away with defamation without paying the price they ought to pay. Only a few are willing to go through the stress involved in seeking redress.
The Court system is slow and tedious. Going to court is like starting a PhD programme in some of our universities. You only know the starting date, you never know when you will finish, or deemed to have finished. We once had a case in court, and after 8 years of moving from one court to the other, one judge to the other, one division to the other, it blew up in the hands of endsars arsonists who set the Lagos (Igbosere) High Court on fire, with the file and the case burnt to ashes.
The frustration with civil procedure for remedy is what has pushed many to seek refuge under the umbrella of criminal defamation, and the provisions of the Cybercrime Act, which has become a remedy for taking on those who have taken to abusing the social media space as platform to making, bully, stalk others.
As we have come to see, those who engage in these acts, along with their enablers have now taken to demonising the law and victims rather than address the abuse by anarchists posturing as activists and political actors out to achieve a private agenda presented as intervention in public interest.
When we make a case for balance, civility, fidelity to the facts, we face a pushback from so-called activists and defenders of the civic space who line up behind all sorts of abberations and poor conduct in the public space in the name of speaking truth to power. You would think that being unruly, uncivil and intolerant of the opinion of other people is a condition for speaking truth to power. It is only when these enablers become victims of the evil they groomed and nurtured that they appreciate our call for balance and common sense.
Last week, I stumbled on a tweet(?) by one of the Anchors of the Breakfast Shows on TV who is always quick to indulge some of those who engage in these aberrations in the name of freedom of expression. Angered by an allegation made against him at having received N5 million for his father’s funeral programme from a former Presidential Candidate, he went after the man who made the allegation, assuring the man who was said to have deleted his account that he has the man’s bank account details and had ‘nowhere to hide’.
It was no longer about freedom of expression or speaking truth to the ‘Journalist’. Indeed, it is easy to posture as a defender of the freedom of expression in the misguided belief or misunderstanding that because it is a constitutional right, it comes with immunity against prosecution for criminal defamation or damages in case of a civil action, until the shoe is in our foot. It is easy to sit in the studio and sernonise until you become the victim of what you have enabled.
I will argue that from the moment ‘human rights’ advocacy became a business/enterprise or front for some Lawyers to advertise themselves or their trade, it became an all-comers affair and a mask for all sorts. That led to surge in the ranks of television lawyers who have unfortunately misled people into confusing advocacy for incivility, and an assumption that defamation can be excused under the guise of courage or speaking truth to power.
This, I think, is what has proliferated the kind of low-level activism which prioritises sensationalism and the practice of running with one side of a story over respect for the rights of others, as we see on social media.
I came in this morning to see a post by a Lady apologising to another woman for falsely accusing her of extramarital affair with her husband. I don’t know who she is, but she has a sizeable following on this platform. Apparently, she didn’t carry out the due diligence that one would think is required for such a sensitive matter before taking to this platform to make the allegation. Now there is fire on the mountain.
It is what it is. I have before me now the case of a ‘Senior Journalist’ who came on to my page to make a false allegation against me. This allegation, a fabrication by this woman, with no evidential basis, she says, is a ‘fair comment’. How did we get to the point where a ‘Senior Journalist’ cannot tell a ‘fair comment’ apart from an allegation, especially one that is patently false?
When people have traded away their reputation, they are not likely to have regard for the reputation of others. Otherwise, one would expect an educated mind to exercise caution in levelling accusations at others. With people being led by more emotions rather than logic, we now see all sorts. People take a position, and now begin to walk backwards to misinterprete facts to suit their predilections. Anything that runs contrary to their made-up minds is rejected. Whoever shares anything contrary becomes an adversary whose reputation must be thrashed to get even.
Frustrating as the court system is, it has come to a point for people to start standing up to protect their reputation so that these guys who think defamation as ‘cruise’ have a rethink.
Reputation can either be an asset or a liability. If you have a good reputation, do all you can to protect it. Defend it with your life. Reputation is life.
