Sowore Opens Defence in Suit Alleging Defamation of Tinubu

Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) and publisher of Sahara Reporters, has commenced his defence in an alleged criminal defamation suit brought against him by the Federal Government, concerning statements made about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on social media. The suit, heard at the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleges that Sowore described President Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. This development follows the court's rejection of Sowore's 'no-case submission,' compelling him to present his defence. Concurrently, Sowore faces potential remand over his alleged failure to fully perfect the bail conditions previously granted in the same matter, highlighting the procedural complexities and stakes involved in this high-profile case.

The Federal High Court in Abuja is currently seized with a significant legal battle involving Omoyele Sowore, a prominent human rights activist and presidential candidate, who has formally opened his defence in a criminal defamation suit. The suit, initiated by the Federal Government, alleges that Sowore defamed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu through social media posts. This case underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution, and the protection of reputation, particularly concerning public figures.

Defamation in Nigerian law is primarily governed by common law principles, supplemented by statutory provisions such as the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and the Penal Code Act (applicable in Northern Nigeria). It encompasses both libel (defamation in a permanent form, such as written words or broadcasts) and slander (defamation in a transient form, typically spoken words). To establish defamation, a claimant generally must prove that a statement was made, that it referred to the claimant, that it was false, that it was published to a third party, and that it caused damage to the claimant's reputation. However, for libel, damage is often presumed. The Criminal Code Act, specifically Section 373, defines defamation as a matter likely to injure a person's reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or damaging them in their profession or trade. Criminal defamation, as alleged in Sowore's case, carries potential penalties including imprisonment or a fine, or both. Recent judicial pronouncements, such as the Supreme Court's decision in *Abalaka v. Akinsete*, have shifted the burden, requiring claimants to prove both the defamatory nature and the falsity of the statements, aligning Nigerian law with global trends prioritising freedom of expression.

Omoyele Sowore's defence in the defamation suit hinges on challenging the elements of the prosecution's case and asserting established legal defences. The prosecution alleges that Sowore, through posts on his X and Facebook accounts, described President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal.” In response, Sowore's legal team, led by Olumide Fusika, SAN, called Deji Adeyanju as its first witness. Adeyanju testified that President Tinubu himself had publicly stated that Nigerians possess the right to criticise, insult, and call him names as part of democratic governance, and that law enforcement agencies should respect citizens' democratic rights. Video recordings of these remarks were tendered as exhibits, suggesting a defence strategy rooted in 'fair comment' and potentially 'truth' or 'justification.'

The defence of 'justification' requires the defendant to prove that the statement made is true in substance and fact. In the context of criminal defamation under the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act, truth coupled with public benefit operates as a complete defence. The defence of 'fair comment,' on the other hand, protects honest opinions on matters of public interest, provided the comment is based on true facts, is an opinion (not a statement of fact), is free of malice, and concerns a legitimate public interest. Given the political nature of the alleged defamatory statements and the public office held by the claimant, these defences are particularly pertinent. The tendering of President Tinubu's own statements acknowledging citizens' right to criticism could be a strategic move to bolster a fair comment defence, arguing that Sowore's remarks, even if strong, fall within the ambit of permissible political discourse.

Procedurally, the case has seen several turns, including the court's earlier rejection of Sowore's 'no-case submission,' which compelled him to enter his defence. This indicates that the prosecution had established a *prima facie* case requiring a response. A notable ancillary issue is the Department of State Services' (DSS) repeated attempts to have Sowore remanded due to his alleged failure to perfect bail conditions. Justice Mohammed Umar had granted Sowore bail in the sum of N200 million with two sureties, including a traditional ruler from his community and a landed property owner in Abuja, and the deposit of his international passport. While the court has thus far resisted immediate remand, allowing Sowore time to comply, this ongoing tension highlights the broader implications of the case beyond the defamation allegations, touching on issues of judicial discretion and the rights of defendants.

The ongoing defamation trial of Omoyele Sowore presents a critical examination of the boundaries of free speech and the protection of reputation in Nigeria's democratic landscape. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the robust defences available in defamation actions, particularly 'justification' and 'fair comment,' and their application in politically charged contexts. The court's eventual decision will likely provide further clarity on the interpretation of defamatory statements concerning public figures and the extent to which critical commentary, especially on social media, is protected under constitutional provisions for freedom of expression.

Practitioners should closely monitor the court's reasoning regarding the admissibility and weight of President Tinubu's alleged statements as a defence, as this could set an important precedent for future cases involving public officials. Furthermore, the procedural aspects concerning bail conditions and potential remand underscore the need for meticulous compliance and strategic engagement with court directives. The outcome of this trial will undoubtedly contribute significantly to Nigerian jurisprudence on defamation, particularly in the digital age, and its interplay with fundamental human rights.