The Blurred Lines Between Free Speech and Defamation

Before now, the logic behind freedom of expression as entrenched in the Nigeria constitution is quite logical and well tenable.

Overtime, the provision has been greatly abused that as a person well abreast with the wordings of the Nigerian laws, you will agree that it has become (in mosttimes) obviously, undefendable in recent time. Mysterious.

These days, it is not surprising to see people landing themselves in ebullient defamation lawsuits as a result of free speech being overused. 

The Afe Babalola saga is still fresh. Agreed, the general rule is that there is freedom of expression, even against the owners of the Nigerian government, it is a constitutional right. 

However, in every general rule, there must be an exception. Saying an untrue statement about someone can not only make you liable in a civil suit, but as well, land you in prison. 

What then is defamation? Defamation, simply put, precludes the publication of a statement (usually untrue) to a person about another person, in order to either discredit the person in his office, that he has a contagious disease or many more which makes the person talked about entitled to damages against the publisher. 

Defamation can either be libel or slander. It is libel when it is in writing, and slander when it is communicated through words of mouth. It is concurrently a crime and a torts. 

While all libel is actionable per se (without proof of damage) slander, save for certain exceptions, is not actionable per se.

You now wonder why people still go ahead to publish and talk about things about people which they know to be untrue. Well, we are very much of your mind. 

The problem with Nigeria is not the absence of these rules but rather in the implementation. If anybody can just come online and publish anything (true or otherwise) against anybody, then there is obviously an unclear menses at the corridors of justice in this country.

Although, there is room for fair comment as well as constructive criticism as a defense to any defamatory suit against anybody. However, fair comments can not protect anyone who willingly makes false allegations against anyone either in government or with a name. 

Most importantly is that, before bh one can be defamed, the person has to have reputation. For if you don’t have a name, what are they tainting then? Nullity.

At this point, it is pertinent to understand that while the law aims at protecting the free speech privilege as firmly entrenched in the constitution on the one hand, the law seeks to protect the right of it’s citizens against hate speech on the other hand.

The law seeks to strike a balance and sensor individual rights as to exercise them in such a way as to not trample on the right of others.

However, haven exposes the thin line between defamation and free speech. It’s up to you to either defame or not defame. 

A saying in yoruba aligns well with this; “Orin ní síwájú ijó, ìlù ní síwájú òtè. Bayi Lan she Nile wa, èwò ibòmí nhi.” (Music precedes dance, drums precedes rebellion. This is how we do in our land is a taboo elsewhere) after the clear signs, defamation, and free speech are both choices to be made, just be ready for its consequences.