The N500 million defamation suit against Mr Lemmy Ughegbe is legally unsustainable, ethically questionable, and strategically counterproductive. It lacks the essential legal foundation required for a defamation claim, contradicts established judicial precedents, and undermines fundamental rights to free speech and advocacy. The school’s own submissions in court confirm that its struggles stem from public concern, rather than any defamation.
The N500 million defamation suit filed by Premiere Academy against Mr Lemmy Ughegbe, a journalist and relentless advocate for child and gender rights, raises concerns about the growing misuse of defamation laws to suppress advocacy. The case, stemming from Ughegbe’s demand for justice in the tragic death of 14-year-old Keren-Happuch Aondoodo Akpagher, has drawn significant public attention. It brings to the forefront an important debate: where does legitimate advocacy end, and where does defamation begin?
|
|
Mr Ughegbe’s reference to the school as a prime suspect, while addressing lawyers at the NBA Law Week, is the narrow issue for determination in the defamation suit filed by Premiere Academy. A criminal complaint against the school, filed by Keren’s mother, resulted in the interrogation and release on bail of Mr Chris Akinsonwon and Grace Salami. This is official. And it is a fact.
Keren’s mother, Mrs Vivien Akpagher, has openly questioned the audacity of Premiere Academy in suing. Expressing her disbelief and outrage, she stated, “Premiere Academy had the temerity to bring Lemmy Ughegbe to court — someone who is fighting for my daughter to make sure she gets the justice she deserves. I truly wanted to come and look at them face to face — the people that killed my girl — just to see how they live, how they function daily.”
|
|
|
|---|
In a recent opinion piece, published by PREMIUM TIMES, titled “Walking the thin line between advocacy and defamation,” Haroon Aremu Abiodun suggests that while advocacy is essential, it must not infringe upon reputational rights through unverified allegations. Haroon Aremu Abiodun’s piece pretends unsuccessfully to be concerned about advocates’ responsibilities to ensure factual claims whereas he preoccupied himself with totally obliterating “the thin line between advocacy and defamation.” He attempted disguising the purpose of his piece, by cautioning advocacy to be hinged on facts. Abiodun’s caution is valid in principle. Regardless, its application to the case against Mr Ughegbe is flawed. The statements for which he is being sued are not baseless accusations, but legally sound assertions grounded in public records and legal frameworks. The public record is the petition filed by Keren’s mother alleging that her daughter was sexually abused in the school, where she was a boarding student. Under the legal framework, ‘suspect’ is the nomenclature for the school so accused.
To succeed in a defamation claim, the claimant must prove that a false statement was published to a third party, damaging their reputation, and made with actual malice or negligence. These elements, which courts have consistently upheld in cases such as Momoh v. Umoru (2011) LPELR-19708(CA), do not apply to Ughegbe’s statements. In Nigeria, a criminal complaint legally designates the individual or institution as a suspect. Ughegbe’s reference to the school in this context is, therefore, not defamatory but a factual assertion grounded in legal precedent.
Premiere Academy’s own admissions in court have further undermined its defamation claim. At the Abuja High Court, the school’s representatives presented evidence confirming that the #Justice4Keren campaign has significantly affected its reputation and financial standing. Led in evidence by Barrister Olajide Kumuyi, Mr Chris Akinsonwon tendered a flash drive containing Mr Ughegbe’s speech at the 2021 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Law Week, where he urged legal professionals to demand justice. They also submitted three years of admission registers, showing a decline in student enrollment to only 59 new applicants in 2022. These documents, rather than proving defamation, highlight the fact that public sentiment — not false statements — has driven the school’s reputational decline.
The court’s approach to this case also raises troubling questions about judicial impartiality. At the last hearing, Justice Kayode Agunloye reportedly interjected to coach the plaintiff’s counsel, instead of allowing them to respond independently to objections raised regarding the admissibility of documents. This level of involvement is contrary to the fundamental principles of judicial neutrality. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has, in cases such as Akinfe v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 729, emphasised that judges must maintain objectivity and refrain from actively assisting one party over another. The English Court of Appeal, in Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v. Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577, similarly re-emphasised the necessity of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done. Where a judge appears to favour one side, it casts doubt on the integrity of the proceedings and erodes public trust in the judiciary.
Beyond its legal and procedural weaknesses, this lawsuit represents a disturbing attempt to use defamation claims to stifle public interest advocacy. If allowed to stand, it would embolden institutions to deploy Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as tools of intimidation. The N500 million damages claim against Ughegbe is excessive and suggests a punitive intent rather than a legitimate attempt at redress. Nigerian courts have repeatedly rejected the misuse of litigation to suppress, as seen in Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR, where the Supreme Court ruled that litigation should not be weaponised to frustrate legitimate rights.
The backlash against Premiere Academy’s lawsuit has only amplified the very issue it sought to suppress. This case is a textbook example of the Streisand Effect, where attempts to suppress information led to greater public exposure. Instead of shielding its reputation, Premiere Academy’s decision to sue Mr Ughegbe has intensified demands for accountability. This mirrors New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), where the court ruled that public officials cannot use defamation laws to silence criticism on matters of public concern.
The N500 million defamation suit against Mr Lemmy Ughegbe is legally unsustainable, ethically questionable, and strategically counterproductive. It lacks the essential legal foundation required for a defamation claim, contradicts established judicial precedents, and undermines fundamental rights to free speech and advocacy. The school’s own submissions in court confirm that its struggles stem from public concern, rather than any defamation. Instead of resorting to legal intimidation, Premiere Academy should engage in meaningful transparency and public accountability.
The courts must not allow defamation laws to be weaponised as a tool for silencing advocacy. The misuse of legal processes is evident in the case against Mr Ughegbe; dismissing it clearly signals that manipulating the law to shield institutions from public scrutiny is unacceptable. Furthermore, we should examine Justice Kayode Agunloye’s conduct in this trial to maintain judicial neutrality. If a judge appears to be coaching one side, it not only taints the case, but weakens confidence in the judiciary.
Mr Ughegbe’s courage in the face of this legal intimidation is commendable, and his advocacy serves as a powerful reminder that justice cannot be silenced. This lawsuit should be dismissed as the futile and desperate attempt it is. The #Justice4Keren movement will not be silenced, and no amount of legal intimidation will erase public demand for the truth. The legal system must remain a guardian of transparency and accountability, not a shield for institutions seeking to evade scrutiny. Let justice prevail, truth be upheld, and impunity never thrive.
Dooshima Charles, a gender activist, writes from Abuja.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
