Justice Babangida Hassan of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has dismissed a libel suit filed against former Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) by the Chairman of the HEDA Resource Centre, Olanrewaju Suraju.
It is instructive to note that Adoke had in February 2021, sent a petition to the Inspector General of Police (IGP), alleging forgery of an email and stage-managing of a phone conversation which he said were meant to implicate him in the OPL 245 criminal trial in Italy and civil proceedings in the United Kingdom (UK).
After investigations, police indicted Suraju of circulating the false information against Adoke on social media and recommended to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to charge Suraju to court for alleged cyber crime.
Suraju was subsequently charged to court but the case was terminated on the orders of the then Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice , Abubakar Malami (SAN), in April 2022 because of the civil proceedings in the UK in which Nigeria was relying on the same materials to prove its case.
But before Suraju was charged to court in February 2022, he had filed a libel action against Adoke over the publication of his petition to the IGP by the media and demanded N100million damages.
Adoke also said an email was forged and a telephone interview was stage-managed featuring someone pretending to be him just to indict him.
The ex-AGF therefore asked the police to investigate the source of the forgeries, after which Suraju was indicted by the police.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Babangida Hassan dismissed the suit in its entirety and held that Suraju failed to prove his allegation of defamation.
The judge further held that the petition, which was Suraju’s main evidence, did not contain his name and could therefore not have defamed him.
Justice Hassan also found that the webpage of Premium Times presented to the court by Suraju does not contain an acknowledgement copy of Adoke’s petition to the IGP and could not be cited as proof of publication by the defendant — a necessary ingredient of defamation.
The court further held that the absence of critical proofs — such as the email in dispute — was fatal to the Suraju’s claims, maintaining that sending a petition to the police cannot in itself constitute defamation as it is the right of a citizen to do so.
Suraju had presented Adoke’s petition to the police as exhibit A1, but the court held that his name did not appear anywhere in the petition and cannot therefore be a proof of libel.
Justice Hassan concluded that Suraju’s evidence had been successfully challenged and contradicted in court and it is “hence not worthy of acceptance”.
But the ex-AGF Adoke did not put up a defence during hearing, arguing that the fundamental case of defamation had not been established by Suraju and there was nothing for him to defend.
Dismissing the suit, Justice Hassan agreed that there was nothing for Adoke to defend as there was no evidence to prove that the certified true copy of the petition was read by a third party — which is a key factor in defamation.
But the judge did not award any costs after dismissing Suraju’s suit.
It is important to note that Nigeria lost all the cases on the OPL 245 transaction as one court after the other held that there was no evidence that the country was short-changed.
Although Adoke was not a party to the cases in Italy and the UK, his name featured prominently in the hearings but he denied all allegations of corruption levelled against him.
Adoke also won the cases filed against him in Nigeria by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Two Milan prosecutors were jailed by an Italian court for forgery and for withholding vital information that would have vindicated the accused in the OPL 245 trial.
The two prosecutors – Fabio De Pasquale and Sergio Spadaro – were accused of failing in their legal obligation to submit evidence favourable to the defence during the trial.
