A magistrate’s court in Illorin, Kwara State, has jailed two Nigerian journalists for publishing a defamatory article against an agricultural company, Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited.

The convicts – Gidado Shuaib and Olufemi Alfred – published the article in question on 26 March, 2018, with title, ‘Kwara Factory Where Indian Hemp Smoking is Legalised.’

Published by an online platform, News Digest, the article said Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited, a firm located at Kilometre 4, Ajase-Ipo along Offa Road, Amberi Village, Kwara State, allowed its staff members to deal in illicit drugs, Indian hemp.

Following a petition to the Kwara State Police command by the company against the authors of the damaging publication, the duo were investigated and arraigned in court.

The journalists were tried for offences of criminal conspiracy and defamation of character.

But delivering judgement on the suit on 7 February 2023, the court held that the prosecution proved its case against the journalists.

In a copy of the judgement seen by PREMIUM TIMES, the Senior Magistrate, A.S Muhammad, said “the defendants had common intention in publishing” the damaging article “and must have intended the natural consequences.”

Mr Muhammad further ruled that “the elements of defamation have been established by the prosecution.”

Sentencing

The magistrate sentenced the convicts to two months’ imprisonment with an option of N40,000 on count one of the charge – offence of conspiracy.

“On defamation, the 1st and 2nd convicts are sentenced to a fine of N60,000 only each or three months imprisonment in default of payment,” Mr Muhammad said.

The magistrate clarified that “each of the convicts is to pay a fine of N100,000 only for the offences of conspiracy and defamation respectively, having been convicted.”

Background

In the offending publication, Mr Olufemi wrote that Hillcrest factory, a rice milling company, was “permitting its workers to smoke Indian hemp and tobacco on duty.”

The defamed company said a key fallout of the defamatory article came when a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based company, Aras Group LLC, withdrew a loan facility it was about issuing to Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited.

The prosecution’s first witness had told the court that the Aras Group LLC drew Hillcrest’s attention to the damaging article, saying “they would not deal with (a) company that is involved in illicit drugs activities.”

It was the loss of the loan facility from the Aras Group that triggered the defamation suit against the convicts.

The Hillcrest management filed a petition at the Kwara State Police command, demanding an investigation into the allegations.

On 12 November 2019, Messrs Shuaib and Olufemi were arraigned on charges of conspiracy and defamation. The offences breached Section 97 and 392 of the Penal Code Law.

In proving its case, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered eight exhibits.

Testifying, the first prosecution witness denied the claim in the defamatory report where he was said to be a personal assistant to Serah Alade, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

At the close of the prosecution’s case, on 5 April 2022, the defendants filed a no-case submission, urging the court to dismiss the case against them on the grounds that the prosecution failed to lead any incriminating evidence against them.

In its ruling, however, the court dismissed the defendants’ no-case submission, affirming that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them.

The court then ordered defendants to enter their defence.

Defence

The defendants jointly called only one witness, Adepoju Adedotun, and tendered six exhibits in a bid to extricate themselves from the case.

In arguing their case, the defendants argued that the Nigerian Supreme Court had “decriminalised” defamation.

They had submitted two issues in their final written address before the court. The two issues were whether the prosecution had proven the offences as charged against the defendants and whether the defendants were not covered by the defence of justification and privilege.

Citing section 39 of the constitution, the defendants contended that the criminalisation of defamation was improper and antithetical to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression.

But the magistrate, in his verdict, held that the defendants’ arguments were “clear attempts to distort or arm-twist the facts and decisions of the Supreme Court.”

He said the Supreme Court never decriminalised defamation “but rather affirms its constitutionality.”

“To my mind, the evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming in proving all the above ingredients,” the magistrate held.