Anger and frustration were boldly written on Senior Advocate Femi Falana’s face. His reputation left hanging in the balance on account of the questions raised by Very Dark Man riding on the claims that had been allegedly made by Bob Risky.
He sighed before making a profound statement to the effect that but for the fact that he had been advocating for the decriminalisation of defamation, he might have been forced to respond differently to Very Dark Man. In other words, he would have proceeded to filing a complaint for criminal action, but for the fact that his hands were tied by his advocacy.
A few points from that:
One, the level of damage or injury suffered is a factor in the course of action one is likely to take in pursuit of remedy.
Two, he indirectly confirmed that there is indeed a provision for criminal defamation in our jurisdiction, otherwise he would not have stated that he had been an advocate for its excision from our laws.
The question one should ask is this – If the law makes defamation possible civil and Criminal liabilities, why would some opt for the road less travelled in the face of wrong.
The answer, in part, has been answered above. The gravity of the wrong suffered will is often a consideration for the victim. A show of remorse and/or apology can also count in swaying the victim’s decision.
More importantly, to me, is the slow pace of justice delivery in our system. That, as I have seen it, is what has emboldened many of those who defame.
They always have at the back of their mind that they can always wear you out through a long and tortuous process in the court, thus depriving you of justice at the right time, if at all.
It is a no-brainer why anyone would choose to libel a 90 year old. With the victim already in the ‘departure lounge’, he is an easy picking, knowing how slowly the wheel rolls, knowing also that the libel suit automatically dies in the case of death of the plaintiff.
For me, taking on the elderly in such a manner is an act of cowardice rather than courage some have construed it to be.
If you have experienced the pain that comes with the slow pace of justice in our courts, you will understand why people opt to take chances with entrusting matters to the state in the pursuit of justice.
Years ago, tired of the serial abuse from GT Bank, I decided to take action by filing a suit with the Lagos State High Court. That was 2012.
That matter made the rounds from one court to the other, one division to the other, despite the much-vaunted front loading system in place.
In 2020, we found ourselves in the Lagos division (Igbosere) in a matter we had only a day sitting to close at Ikeja, and missed out because the Judge had a flight to catch. Well, we were to start de novo only for End Sars to happen and the Igbosere Court was razed down. The file, among others, burnt to ashes.
Eight years of work in pursuit of justice gone. Money expended in the course of this, including that for many trips from Abuja to Lagos wasted.
Now, think back to how it all started. Before I elected to go to Court, a lawyer had reviewed the case and had advised lodging a complaint with the police against some of the Bank officials as the best bet to get the Bank to sit up.
I got his point. But I weighed against it. I remembered the Mobitel case. I told him the risk involved in policemen going to a bank to arrest Bank officials, which is usually guarded by policemen. What if it leads to a clash and possible shooting?
I declined his advice and opted to go civil. 8 years after, I learnt my lesson, even as I have no regrets about my course of action.
But my point is this, given the state of the justice system, one can see why many resort to the state for help in matters that might otherwise been resolved through a civil action.
It is easy to pontificate and pretend to be an Advocate for unrestrained rights to freedom of expression when your reputation is not being thrashed and the good name you have laboured to build is not on the line.
Your reputation might not be worth a dime to you, it is everything to others.
Walk in the shoes of the one whose reputation has been irreparably damaged, for once, and let us see you grandstand, quoting the law upside down.
There is a thin line between what is criminal and that which is civil. In many instances there is an overlap, and both can be pursued either paripasu or one after the other, with some taking to the civil because of the lower burden of proof it requires.
It is the choice of the victim to make, it not that of meddlesome interlopers and online lawyers to make. You cannot dictate to me how to respond to harm or damage, as long as my response is within the parameters of the law.
I will even argue that this practice of a mob seeking to bully a victim of defamation into a particular or preferred course of action is tyrannical and an assault on the right of the victim in his pursuit of justice.
If you have issues with defamation remaining in the books, please direct your advocacy towards it being expunged from the books. As long as it is there, do not blackmail anyone who takes to it in pursuit of justice.
You cannot dictate to the man who has been slapped which language he should employ in crying out.
It should be up to him whether to cry in Pidgin or Queen’s English.
Please accord whoever it is the liberty to cry out in a language of his choice, as long as it is legal.
If and when your time comes, choose to go your preferred way.
