The legal battle between Afe Babalola SAN, a prominent legal figure, and Dele Farotimi, a renowned lawyer, former Labour Party spokesperson and human rights activist, raises critical issues surrounding Libel (Defamation), Self-publishing and The Ethical Responsibilities of Authors, Rule of Law and the Criminal Justice System in Nigeria. 

What constitutes as Defamation in Nigeria

In Oruwari v. Osler (2013) 5 N.W.L.R. (Part 1348) Page 535 at 556, Chukwuma-Eneh JSC of the Supreme Court held: “Defamation, as a tort — whether in the form of libel (written) or slander (spoken) — has been judicially defined to include any imputation that tends to lower the person defamed in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and thereby exposes the plaintiff to hatred, opprobrium, odium, contempt, or ridicule.”

Under Nigerian law, defamation is addressed by both civil and criminal statutes, particularly Sections 373 and 375 of the Criminal Code. For a statement to qualify as defamatory, it must be untrue or misleading, communicated to at least one-third party, and result in reputational damage in the eyes of reasonable members of society. Additionally, the statement must have been made either with malice — where there is a deliberate intention to cause harm — or through negligence, meaning it was made with reckless disregard for the truth.

This is a significant provision, as it emphasises the potential harm that defamatory statements can cause, particularly when they impinge upon the reputation of individuals or institutions of high standing, such as lawyers, politicians, judges, or courts. 

Babalola’s decision to pursue criminal charges instead of a civil suit underscores the tension between safeguarding personal reputation and protecting freedom of speech. However, the involvement of law enforcement in what many believe should be a civil matter has raised concerns about the proportionality and appropriateness of criminal measures in defamation cases.

Dele Farotimi’s Assertions

At the centre of the dispute are claims contained in Farotimi’s book titled ‘Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System’ published in 2024, suggesting that Afe Babalola influenced judicial proceedings of the Apex Court in collusion with the justices of the said Apex Court.

As noted in Babalola’s petition, Farotimi made assertions about Babalola and members of his law firm, the Lagos State judiciary, and the Supreme Court; some of those assertions are:

1. “ We quickly realised that the law office of Afe Babalola & Co, Emmanuel Chambers had outsourced the judgement execution to another law office, the firm of S.B Joseph & Co. The firm had fraudulently and deliberately concealed the judgement of AKA’AHS and had underlined the words of Justice Rhodes Vivour to deceive and perhaps mislead Atilade or as is more likely, Atilade was always a part of the original fraud”. See page 56.

2. “But apparently, we had underestimated the extent of the putrefaction of the Supreme Court and the extent of Chief Afe Babalola’s corrupt reaches into the innards of the Supreme Court”. See page 64.

3. “The Lagos crowd had been snookered into a corner by the exertions of my chambers, and we had demolished the original fraud that was hatched before Afe secured the first of the two judgements………..The Supreme Court cannot hide behind the incompetence of counsel, as it has a duty to examine its own appalling intellectual indolence, corruption or incompetence.”  page 70

4. “Afe is so enmeshed in his corruption that he has lost all sense of propriety and or fairness”. See page 84

5. “The first we knew of the magic being put together by Afe and his elves must have been around the middle of July”. See page 49

Undoubtedly, these assertions implicated not just Babalola, but the Nigerian judicial system in its entirety, questioning its fairness and integrity. While Farotimi may have intended to expose corruption or malpractice, the tone and nature of his claims are what have landed him in legal trouble. According to Afe Babalola, these assertions are not merely criticisms but are defamatory and have resulted in damage to his reputation.

Self-publishing and The Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

The case of Afe Babalola versus Dele Farotimi highlights critical issues surrounding self-publishing and the ethical responsibilities of authors. While Farotimi’s intentions may have been to critique corruption within the Nigerian legal system, the manner in which these critiques were presented has raised serious legal concerns. Babalola’s decision to pursue legal action, accusing Farotimi of defamation, is a reminder of the potential consequences of publishing unverified, unsubstantiated, or defamatory material.

In the context of self-publishing, the case also underscores the need for authors to adhere to ethical standards of publishing. Reputable publishers serve an important function in ensuring that the content they release is both factually accurate and legally sound. Farotimi’s self-published book, which bypassed these checks, may have inadvertently exposed him to legal liability. As writers and activists, it is crucial to recognise the weight of our words and the responsibility we carry when we publish content that may harm others' reputations.

Resolution

As of now, the legal dispute between Afe Babalola (SAN) and Dele Farotimi appears to have been resolved without proceeding to a full court trial. The matter stemmed from alleged defamatory statements made by Dele Farotimi regarding the senior lawyer's integrity. Following public controversy and legal threats, Dele Farotimi issued a formal public apology and retraction, expressing regret for his statements and acknowledging that they were baseless and capable of tarnishing the impeccable reputation Afe Babalola had built over decades.

The matter was thus settled amicably, with both parties avoiding prolonged litigation. This resolution underscores the importance of responsible public commentary, especially concerning respected public figures, and demonstrates the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and public apology in defamation cases in Nigeria.

The Afe Babalola and Dele Farotimi case is a complex intersection of legal principles, personal grievances, and broader societal issues. It underscores the importance of balancing defamation laws with freedom of expression and answers the big question of when Criticism becomes Defamation. In answering the big question, criticism becomes defamation when it involves a false statement of fact that is published and harms a person's reputation. This means the criticism is not based on truth and is likely to damage a person's standing in the community, potentially causing them significant harm. This distinction is crucial, as expressing opinions or criticisms based on true facts, even if harsh, is generally protected under freedom of speech laws.

If the criticism is based on factual information, even if negative, it is typically not considered defamation. In conclusion, reforms in defamation law, coupled with public education about legal rights and responsibilities, are essential to prevent similar conflicts and enhance trust in Nigeria’s legal system. This case serves as a reminder that justice must be transparent and accessible for all parties involved.

Written by: Ozordi John-Paul