December 06, 2024
By Samuel Ogunsona
The historic defamation case between two of Nigeria’s most influential leaders, Obafemi Awolowo and Nnamdi Azikiwe, has been revisited in recent times.
This case is particularly relevant in the wake of the recent arrest of Dele Farotimi for defamation by Aare Afe Babalola SAN.
Dr. Abejide B. Olusegun’s article, “Defamation and Accountability: Understanding Legal Remedies for Ill-Gotten Gains,” sheds light on the legal implications of defamation and how it relates to cases like Awolowo vs. Azikiwe.
In the case of Awolowo vs. Azikiwe, it is alleged that Azikiwe attempted to profit from defamatory statements made against Awolowo.
This raises important questions about the limits of free speech and the consequences of using defamation as a means to gain financially.
As Dr. Olusegun’s article suggests, the legal system provides remedies for those who have been defamed, including the potential to seize ill-gotten gains.
According to the article, *Defamation and Accountability: Understanding Legal Remedies for Ill-Gotten Gains”
He wrote “Dele Farotimi’s arrest for defamation and the significant sales of his allegedly reputation-damaging book raise significant questions about the legal and ethical implications of such actions. While some celebrate the book’s commercial success, it is imperative to recognize that legal principles provide avenues for remedies that can address not only the reputational harm caused but also the financial benefits derived from the defamatory content.
Proceeds from Defamation: Freezing, Confiscation, or Garnishment*
When a publication or work defames an individual and subsequently generates substantial profits, legal systems worldwide recognize the need to address the dual harm: the reputational injury and the unjust enrichment of the defamer. Courts can intervene in such cases to uphold justice. Remedies often include freezing, confiscating, or garnishing the proceeds from the sale of the defamatory material.
Legal Basis for Freezing or Garnishing Proceeds in Defamation Cases
“In Nigeria and many other jurisdictions, the principle of unjust enrichment applies in such cases. The law does not permit individuals to profit from unlawful acts, including defamation. If a book, article, or any other medium generates revenue based on false and malicious content that damages someone’s reputation, the courts are empowered to:
“1. Freeze the Proceeds: A court order can temporarily halt access to the earnings from the book, ensuring that the defendant cannot benefit financially while the legal process is ongoing.
2. Confiscate the Proceeds: If the court finds the content defamatory, it can order the confiscation of all earnings derived from the book as part of punitive damages or fines.
3. Garnish the Proceeds: The plaintiff may receive the earnings as compensation for the harm to their reputation.
The Case of Dele Farotimi
The law provides ample grounds to freeze or redirect the proceeds in the case of Mr. Farotimi, whose book sales have reportedly skyrocketed both domestically and internationally through platforms like Amazon. The basis for this action lies in ensuring that:
1. For reputational harm, including any losses in business, personal relationships, or social standing, the victim receives adequate compensation.
2. The defendant does not profit from spreading falsehoods that damage others.
3. We establish a deterrent effect to stop future acts of defamation.
It is also important to note that international book sales via platforms like Amazon add a layer of complexity. However, international defamation precedents and agreements like the Berne Convention guarantee cross-border remedies, especially when the publisher faces accountability for disseminating defamatory content.
Case Studies: Legal Precedents
1. Chief Obafemi Awolowo v. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (Nigeria)
In one of the most famous defamation cases in Nigeria, Chief Awolowo sued Dr. Azikiwe for statements made in his publication that allegedly defamed Awolowo’s character. The court ruled in favor of Chief Awolowo, awarding damages and ordering the cessation of further publication of the defamatory content. This case underscores that the law takes defamatory statements seriously, especially when they cause substantial reputational damage.
2. Dr. Samuel Ogbemudia v. Daily Times (Nigeria)
In another significant Nigerian case, the plaintiff, Dr. Ogbemudia, sued a newspaper for publishing false statements that defamed him. In addition to awarding damages, the court ordered the confiscation and destruction of all unsold copies of the publication. This precedent highlights the principle that defamatory content cannot continue to exist, nor can its proceeds benefit the defamer.
3. Sullivan v. New York Times Co. (United States)
This landmark case in the United States set the precedent for defamation involving public figures. The case demonstrated the court’s willingness to intervene in defamatory acts that caused measurable harm, even though the plaintiff had to demonstrate actual malice. In later cases, courts have allowed punitive damages and freezing of profits where evidence showed malicious intent and financial gain from the defamatory act.
4. Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd (United Kingdom)
This UK case addressed the accountability of publishers and the damage resulting from false and defamatory statements. Procedural failures caused Reynolds to lose the case, but subsequent rulings have established that victims can receive proceeds from defamatory material to rectify the harm.
Ethical and Legal Lessons
The Dele Farotimi case should serve as a reminder of the ethical and legal principles surrounding free speech and defamation:
1. Unjust Enrichment: Individuals cannot profit from content that defames others. We can seize any ill-gotten financial benefits from defamatory material to ensure justice.
2. Deterrence: Freezing and garnishing proceeds deter others from using defamatory acts as a means to generate attention or financial gain.
3. Compensation: By redirecting proceeds, we ensure that victims of defamation do not bear the consequences of the harm alone.
4. Global Accountability: With the advent of global platforms like Amazon, defamation laws have expanded their reach. Publishers and authors alike must recognize their accountability not just within their home countries but also internationally.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
“The praise for the commercial success of Dele Farotimi’s book, despite its defamatory content, reflects a troubling misunderstanding of justice and accountability. While free speech is a right, it is not an unchecked license to harm others’ reputations and profit from falsehoods. Courts in Nigeria and abroad have established clear precedents that allow victims of defamation to seek justice not only through apologies and damages but also by ensuring that the defamer does not retain any financial benefits from their wrongdoing.
“As this case unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how the Nigerian judiciary applies these principles, particularly in the context of international sales. The outcome could set a significant precedent for defamation law in the digital age, reminding authors, publishers, and intellectuals alike that accountability and responsibility must underpin every word written and sold.”
