Pan Yoruba Socio-political group, Afenifere, has called for the immediate release of human rights activist Mr Dele Farotimi, who was being detained over the allegation of defamation of Aare Afe Babalola SAN.
The mainstream Yoruba Socio-political group said the libel in Nigeria’s jurisdiction is a civil case and should not be treated as a criminal case, as being done in the case involving Farotimi and Aare Babalola.
In a statement signed by the Deputy Leader, Oba Oladipo Olaitan, and National Publicity Secretary, Prince Justice Faloye, said libel under Nigeria law is a bailable offense and wondered why the Magistrate Court declined bail to Farotimi when the case was brought before it.
The group expressed dismay that the accused was denied bail and ordered to be remanded at the Correctional Centre for such a billable offense of defamation after each of the 16 counts in the charge had been read and to which he respectively pleaded not guilty.
Afenifere said the detention of Farotimi confirmed the fears of well-meaning people all over the world that these processes were driven by extraneous considerations outside the facts and laws of the case.
Also, Afenifere said since the book containing the alleged defamatory statements was authored and published in Lagos where the defendant resides, he should have been tried in Lagos and not in Ekiti State.
According to the apex Yoruba group, the fact that Farotimi was charged in Ekiti State was not only ridiculous but amounted to forum shopping as the title “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System” was received and read all over the world, including Ado-Ekiti”.
Afenifere said “The only inference that could be drawn from this is that there is no territorial limit for the trial of the alleged offence, which is laughable. It is ironic that the judiciary, which act is the subject of Farotimi’s book and trial, may, by this insensitive indiscretion, also be putting itself on trial before the world either for incompetence or apparent undue influence.
“Afenifere considers Aare Afe Babalola an icon with whom we share common views on the restructuring of the Nigerian Federation and true federalism and it will be most unfortunate for his name to be associated by the police with the shenanigans of disrespect for the territorial limits of the powers of the constituent states notwithstanding the flawed Nigerian federalism of unitary policing.
“In this case, Afenifere shares the views as most recently held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aviomoh v Commissioner of Police (2022) 4 NWLR (Pt 1819) 69 that “ Punishing defamation with criminal conviction and pain of imprisonment is excessive and out of proportion to the objective of protecting the reputation damaged by defamation when the civil law provides a sufficient remedy to the person aggrieved”.
‘Rather than further muddling itself in this case where its obvious descent into the arena by which its constitutional impartiality may have been so impaired to act in persecution rather than in the office of the prosecution, the Police is enjoined to allow the parties sort themselves out in civil courts.
“Farotimi is a legal practitioner of 25 years at the Nigerian Bar. From reports from both sides, this is not the first time he and the Petitioner have had their days in court over libel suits bothering on professional issues the fallout from which may now have only been documented in a book.
“If the Police, however, feels mandatorily called upon to act, which we find no justification for, let it be seen to assist the courts in ensuring not only that justice is not only served but manifestly done by the enabling laws and their equally important due process. Farotimi is presumed innocent by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which also casts the burden of proof of the charges against him on the prosecution.
“The least expectation in the above regards is that Dele Farotimi be forthwith released on bail and returned to Lagos to face his trial. The order to remand him for a bailable offense is not justifiable in a democratic society. It is an infringement of his constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
