In a reflective piece, writer and researcher Richard Akinnola II draws a compelling parallel between two defamation cases separated by decades: Wole Soyinka’s legal battle with Alhaji Femi Okunnu in the 1970s and the recent controversy between Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, and lawyer Dele Farotimi over alleged defamatory content in a book.
Soyinka, Okunnu, and The Man Died
After his release from detention by General Yakubu Gowon’s administration in 1969, Wole Soyinka penned The Man Died, a scathing memoir recounting his harrowing 27 months in solitary confinement. The book offered not just a vivid narrative of his imprisonment but also personal critiques of individuals within the Gowon regime.
Among those criticized was Alhaji Femi Okunnu, who served as a minister under Gowon. Feeling defamed, Okunnu filed a N500,000 libel suit against Soyinka in 1978, particularly over passages in pages 71 and 72 of the book.
In his 1984 judgment, Justice Candide-Ademola Johnson found that Soyinka had portrayed Okunnu as “a tricky and dubious character.” However, he ruled that the criticisms were matters of public interest and constituted “fair comment.” The court awarded a symbolic N250 as damages against Soyinka and N100 against his publishers—the lowest libel damages in Nigerian history.
Akinnola notes that this judgment underscores the principle of fair comment in public discourse, particularly when addressing matters of public interest.
Babalola vs. Farotimi: A Contemporary Face-Off
Fast-forward to the present, and a similar situation has emerged. Chief Afe Babalola, a revered senior advocate with an unblemished legal career spanning decades, alleges defamation in Dele Farotimi’s book on Nigeria’s criminal justice system. However, instead of seeking redress through civil defamation proceedings, Babalola reportedly involved the police in arresting Farotimi.
Akinnola contrasts this approach with Okunnu’s decision to pursue legal action in court, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rule of law rather than resorting to force.
A Plea for Perspective
Akinnola argues that Babalola’s decision to involve the police detracts from the substantive issue of defamation, shifting public focus to the alleged heavy-handedness of law enforcement. He writes, “Now, attention would be shifted from the alleged defamation to the brute force used by the police in apprehending Dele Farotimi. Aare Babalola doesn’t need this at the twilight of his life.”
He calls for a more measured response, urging individuals to emulate the precedent set by Soyinka and Okunnu, where disputes were resolved within the confines of the judiciary.
Final Thoughts
Akinnola’s analysis offers a thought-provoking exploration of defamation in public discourse, drawing lessons from history while addressing contemporary controversies. His reflections serve as a reminder of the enduring value of legal redress over force in maintaining the integrity of public dialogue.
