Adoke scores another win as court throws out Suraju’s libel suit over OPL 245

A Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has thrown out a libel suit filed against Mohammed Bello Adoke, former Attorney-General of the Federation, by Olanrewaju Suraju, chairman of HEDA Resource Centre.

The court ruled that Suraju failed to prove his allegation of defamation, noting that the petition Adoke sent to the Inspector General of Police didn’t contain Suraju’s name and therefore couldn’t be considered defamatory.

The petition, which was Suraju’s main evidence, alleged forgery of an email and stage-managing of a phone conversation meant to implicate Adoke in the OPL 245 criminal trial in Italy and civil proceedings in the UK. Adoke had sent the petition to the police in February 2021, claiming the email and phone conversation were fabricated to damage his reputation.

After investigations, the police indicted Suraju for circulating false information against Adoke on social media and recommended charges for alleged cybercrime. Suraju was subsequently charged to court, but the case was terminated on the orders of Abubakar Malami, then Attorney-General, in April 2022 due to ongoing civil proceedings in the UK.

Before the charges were terminated, Suraju had instituted a libel action against Adoke over media publication of the petition, demanding N100 million in damages. Suraju claimed Adoke’s petition was defamatory and had damaged his reputation as an anti-corruption activist.

Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Judge Babangida Hassan dismissed the suit, declaring that Suraju’s evidence was “not worthy of acceptance” as it was successfully challenged in court. The court found that the Premium Times webpage presented by Suraju didn’t contain an acknowledgement copy of Adoke’s petition and couldn’t be cited as proof of publication, a necessary ingredient of defamation.

The court also ruled that sending a petition to the police can’t constitute defamation, as it’s a citizen’s right to report suspected crimes. The absence of critical proofs, such as the email in dispute, was fatal to Suraju’s claims, the court maintained.

Suraju had presented Adoke’s petition to the police as exhibit A1, but the court ruled that his name didn’t appear anywhere in the petition and therefore couldn’t be proof of libel. Adoke didn’t put up a defence during the hearing, arguing that Suraju hadn’t established defamation and there was nothing for him to defend.

The court agreed, noting that there was no evidence to prove that the certified true copy of the petition was read by a third party, a key factor in defamation. The judge didn’t award any costs after dismissing the suit.

This is another win for Adoke, who has seen several cases dismissed, including those filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The OPL 245 cases have seen Nigeria lose in multiple courts, with two Milan prosecutors jailed for forgery and withholding evidence.

The 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. Adoke’s name featured prominently in the hearings, but he denied all allegations of corruption.

Adoke claimed an email was forged and a telephone interview was stage-managed featuring someone pretending to be him just to indict him. He asked the police to investigate the source of the forgeries, after which Suraju was indicted by the police.

The outcome of this case is another setback for Suraju, who has been involved in several high-profile cases. The court’s decision underscores the importance of providing robust evidence in defamation cases, and highlights the challenges of proving libel in Nigerian courts.