By I.U Wali.
Defamation law in Nigeria has experienced a significant evolution, particularly concerning the presumption of falsity. Historically, courts presumed defamatory statements were false unless the defendant could prove their truth. Recent judicial developments, however, have shifted this burden, particularly in cases involving public interest.
Historical Position: Presumption of Falsity
1. A.C.B. Ltd. v. Apugo (2001) LPELR-9(SC)
The Supreme Court affirmed the traditional common law position that defamatory statements are presumed false until the defendant proves their truth.
The claimant needed only to prove that the statement was defamatory, published, and referred to them; falsity was assumed.
2. Iloabachie v. Iloabachie [2005] 13 NWLR (Pt. 695) 395
The court reinforced the presumption of falsity, placing the burden on defendants to justify the truth of defamatory statements.
This approach prioritized the protection of individual reputations over freedom of expression.
The Shift: Requiring Proof of Falsity
1. Ekong v. Otop (2014) LPELR-23022(SC); [2014] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1419) 549
Facts: Ekong claimed Otop defamed him but failed to prove the falsity of the statements.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that claimants must prove falsity, particularly in cases touching on public interest.
Impact: This marked the beginning of a shift, reflecting the need to protect freedom of speech in public discourse.
2. Abalaka v. Akinsete [2023] 13 NWLR (Pt. 2003) 343
Facts: Dr. Abalaka claimed to have developed a vaccine for HIV/AIDS and sued the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) and other defendants for defamation. During a press conference, the defendants criticized his claims as fraudulent and labeled him a “quack.” Dr. Abalaka argued that these statements harmed his reputation, while the defendants contended they were in the public interest.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff must prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statements. The court emphasized that in matters of public interest, claimants must demonstrate that the statements were not only defamatory but also false.
Impact: This case solidified the shift from presuming falsity to requiring evidence of falsity, particularly when the statements involve public discourse. It underscores the courts’ commitment to safeguarding freedom of expression, especially on critical public matters.
The trajectory of Nigerian defamation law illustrates a shift towards balancing reputational protection with freedom of expression. While older cases like A.C.B. v. Apugo presumed falsity, more recent judgments like Ekong v. Otop and Abalaka v. Akinsete place a higher evidentiary burden on claimants, particularly in public interest cases. This evolution aligns Nigerian law with global standards, ensuring that free speech is not stifled under the guise of protecting reputation.
I.U Wali.