In my last article, Questions and Answers on Ɗan Bello’s Skits in Journalism, I picked some questions and shared my humble understanding about them. However, I promised to answer more questions, specifically the question about whether Ɗan Bello’s skits are defamatory or not. One may wonder why a media practitioner like me is writing on a very problematic legal issue like defamation. Is that not trespassing the professional line of our learned colleagues? Defamation, of course, is a problematic term; however, in journalism, we have communication law, regulations, and ethics course(s) (depending on how a university labels it). This course introduced media and communication students to basic legal issues, such as defamation, sedition, and other legal frameworks governing the media practice and the industry, such as press freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of information. I was lucky to study these courses under the best hands in the area, the late Prof. Balarabe Maikaba (of blessed memory) and Dr. A.D. Alhassan. Additionally, I wrote a chapter on the issue in my book, Political Communication in the Post-Truth Era: Concepts, Laws, and Strategies. So, my learned colleagues, I am not trespassing, just sharing some basic information to promote media literacy. You can debate the rest in court, and I dare not to follow you there.
Before I present some legal cases and my analysis on Dan Bello’s skits. Let us remind ourselves about the meaning, elements, and defenses of defamation. Section 375 of the Penal Code defines a defamatory matter as a “matter likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by an injury to his reputation.” A statement can be considered defamatory if: 1. it causes harm, such as reputational damage; 2. It is false; 3. It is communicated to a third party other than the defamed person; 4. The defamed person proves damage suffered; 5. It does not fall under privilege publications; 6. It referred to the complainant and was understood as such by right-thinking members. 7. Malicious intent. For instance, in El-Rufai vs. Today Publishing Company Ltd. On July 2, 2015, The Union newspaper published a false report that Mal. Nasiru El-Rufa’i had declared 90 billion assets in his Code of Conduct Bureau CCB assets declaration form. Mal Nasiru ElRufai filed a defamation suit against Today Publishing Company Ltd. The judge confirmed that the report was defamatory because it was false, among other reasons.
Defamatory statements can be written (libel) or oral (slander) and can be committed through conventional media, social media, and other oral and written formats. It is good to note that defamation is costly if the damage is proved in court of law. For instance, in Odubu vs. Roobbs Communication Network LTD, Premier Newspapers, a sum of N100,000,000 (one hundred million Naira) was awarded as damage. On the other hand, a statement may not be considered defamatory if 1. the complainant assents to the statement; 2. it is true; 3. It is a fair comment; 4. the issue was addressed by a previous court, among other defenses.
But it is not always defamation; we have sedition law when the allegation is against the president or governor. Sedition simply means a statement trying to defame a president or governors, incite the public to develop ill will against the government, or promote hatred between a group of people. The relevance of sedition law has been debated for decades considering its colonial origin and undemocratic nature. But, the law remains relevant even in high democracies like France, as we can see in the Mr. Eon case.
As I presented in my last article, Ɗan Bello’s skits were categorised as satire, which is a news story or commentary that critiques injustice in a distorted and/or playful manner. But I didn’t critically discuss how satirical is Ɗan Bello’s satire. This is very important regarding our question on defamation. From the above simple definition of satire, we can understand that the elements of distortion and play/humour are what make satire different from conventional news. Distortion is used to dodge casting accusations directly, while humour is employed to make the content engaging and less serious so that right thinking people will not attach much seriousness to it. Satirists use figures of speeches such as sarcasm, irony, parody, innuendo, and hyperbole to avoid direct confrontation and legal cases.
Exaggeration, as an element of satire which in some cases used by conventional journalists, can serve as defense. In information disorder studies, we call it dilinformation, where fact and false information were intentionally or unintentionally diluted. The false information may not be considered defamatory if the main crux of the statement is true. For instance, if you accused a politician of stealing N10 billion and, in the process, you said he purchased a mansion in Abuja. After investigations, it was found that he stole 10 billion naira but didn’t purchase a mansion in Abuja. Here, the primary accusation is stealing public funds, not purchasing a mansion; hence, the mistake in the latter should not be considered as defamation. In Chukwumerije vs. Adeyemi, Justice Peter Kekemeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyanya, ruled that “it is not necessary to prove the truth of every word in a libel. If the defendant demonstrates that the main charge or gist of the libel is true, he needs not justify the statements, which do not add to the sting of the charge.
Undoubtedly, Ɗan Bello is employing these elements in some of his skits. He used to hide people’s names and identities; for instance, instead of the red cap that symbolizes Kwankwasiyya, he uses a yellow cap. But the serious nature of his topics sometimes hides the humour which is why some considered him tiresome and uncomic. However, he is sometimes rambling between satire and conventional news because some of his videos lack these elements of satire. They sound like conventional news looking at the way he is calling accused persons’ names and identities directly. For instance, in Sule Garo and Kwankwaso’s Nephew videos, he called names directly. I don’t know why he does that, but I think it can be a matter of soft and hard facts. Maybe he employs a satirical element when his leaked information is soft and goes for the latter when he has hard facts. It may also be due to ignorance of journalism. This is subject to research, and I think a number of researchers have embarked on studying his content. Let’s wait to learn from their research findings.
Back to our question, can satire be a defamatory matter?. Generally, in democratic societies, satire is highly recognised and tolerated; hence, it is protected as part of free speech. That’s why you see cartoons that look defamatory, published in reputable newspapers, nothing happens, especially if it is about elected officials or public officeholders. I think the same argument about “free speech protection and opinion tolerance” was used by democratic apologists when somebody drew a caricature “depicting” prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is a discussion for another day. To answer the question, yes, satire can be a defamatory matter, defending the veracity of the content, nature of the topic, format and style of presentation, how reasonable people perceived it, and intent. Nonetheless, scholars opined that it is very difficult to prove it in a court of law. In Mr. Eon v France. On August 28, 2008, when the President of France was on a visit to Laval and his party was about to pass by, Mr. Eon waved a placard that read, “Get lost, you sad prick.” The phrase was popularly used at that time as a means of demonstration. Just like the recent popular phrase “abar masa kayassa” in Arewa cyberspace. Both the lower court and the upper court found Mr. Eon guilty of insulting the President. Mr. Eon filed a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtH). ECtHR ruled in his favour that political satire, by its very nature, is aimed at provoking mockery. Hence, finding Mr. Eon guilty could harm “satire as a way of discussing questions of public interest,” and such a type of discussion is the foundation of each democratic society. A critical look at this case tells you that satire can be considered defamatory as it happened in the French courts, and it might not be considered as such based on the rulings of the ECtHR. That is court for you. Whether Ɗan Bello skits are defamatory or not depends on the content, Nigeria’s legal system, and other aforementioned factors. My humble submission. Wallahu a’alam.
Isah Nasidi, PhD, is a lecturer and media consultant based in Abuja. He can be reached at isanyaya@gmail.com
