HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR JUDGMENT - fcthighcourt.gov.ng · CASE NUMBER: FCT/HC/CV/2100/2014 DATE: WEDNESDAY 27 TH APRIL, 2016 BETWEEN: HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR - PLAINTIFF AND 1. VANGUARD

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


Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar.



Nollywood’s sexiest male actors Jim Iyke and Chude



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


Exhibit I.


Exhibit J.

11. Copy of the Vanguard on Line Newspaper dated 30/6/2012

– Exhibit K.


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







She reportedly says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over



who cancelled his plans for the day recently in order to

pay respect to three people who were short in a school.







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:



Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar....







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.



Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar.....







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:







She reportedly says: “Goodluck Jonathan is insane over



26

who cancelled his plans for the days recently in order

to pay respect to three people were short in a school.







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.



Ambassador, Hajia Habiba Abubakar......

28







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

Documents

HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR JUDGMENT - fcthighcourt.gov.ng · CASE NUMBER: FCT/HC/CV/2100/2014 DATE: WEDNESDAY 27 TH APRIL, 2016 BETWEEN: HAJIA HABIBA ABUBAKAR - PLAINTIFF AND 1. VANGUARD