A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined a request by a businessman, Mr. Ibrahim Dende, asking it to halt any publication about him by Mr. Fisayo Soyombo, an investigative journalist and founder of the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ). The Court instead directed Mr. Deinde’s counsel to put Mr. Soyombo on notice.
Court papers revealed that the businessman had previously sought an ex parte order to restrain Mr. Soyombo, FIJ and Arise TV from further defamatory publications before serving court processes on them.
In response to repeated complaints about Nigeria’s porous borders, Mr Soyombo investigated the complaint by attempting to illegally import 100 bags of rice from the Republic of Benin into Nigeria. He succeeded without any security resistance, using information from corrupt Nigeria Customs Service officials who betrayed patrol teams by informing smugglers of their colleagues’ schedules and the optimal times for smuggling.
He published his findings in a report titled “Undercover As A Smuggler,” which implicated Mr. Dende as the biggest smuggler in the South West. The publication was followed by several tweets about smuggled goods mentioning Dende as the mastermind.
Reacting to the publication, on May 3, 2024, Mr. Dende filed a lawsuit for alleged defamation against FIJ founder, FIJ and Arise Media Group after the television station aired the smuggling documentary.
At the resumed hearing on July 2, Justice Binta Mohammed of the FCT High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, heard IBD Dende’s application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the FIJ and Arise TV from further defamatory publications.
Mr. Dende’s counsel, in his written argument, contended that Mr. Soyombo and FIJ had consistently defamed and maligned Dende’s character. The suit alleged that Soyombo continued to publish statements about Dende as recently as June 3, subjecting him to a social media trial while the lawsuit was still pending.
As a result, Mr. Dende’s counsel argued that the court needed to grant an injunction to stop the “continuous and daily defamatory publications” against the businessman, pending the final determination of the suit.
Mr. Dende’s counsel asserted that the right to freedom of expression under the constitution does not permit any journalist to defame someone’s character. He discredited the viral video published by FIJ, which labelled Dende as a smuggler and gunrunner and maintained that the video showed nothing more than a “verbal altercation” with customs officers and could not be concluded to involve smuggled goods belonging to him. Mr. Dende stated that he is a licensed customs clearing and forwarding agent, whose job is to facilitate the transport of goods into and out of Nigeria.
In response to IBD Dende’s application for an injunction, FIJ affirmed the truth of its publications about Dende and urged the court to dismiss the application. FIJ argued that the injunction was unconstitutional, as it sought prior restraint of the press and would stifle press freedom.
Counsel to Mr. Soyombo and FIJ in his written argument contended that suppressing the press before a trial violates the constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press. He stated that the press has a public duty to expose wrongdoing and should not be subjected to censorship or restrictions in the public interest.
The counsel also argued that granting the application for an injunction to prevent further libel would prejudice the main suit by implying that previous publications were defamatory and required halting further defamatory content. He added that Mr. Dende, who had admitted under oath to assaulting law enforcement officers, did not deserve the equitable relief of an injunction against the press.
FIJ contended that those who seek equity must do so with clean hands, stating that granting an injunction in favour of a party who has engaged in such misconduct, as shown in the video, would be a “perverse incentive.”
Mr. Soyombo and FIJ have also filed a defence to the main suit along with a list of witnesses to testify.
The counsel concluded his arguments, and the court reserved its ruling on the application for an interlocutory injunction to a later date.
