26th May, 2015
Henry Ojelu
The suit instituted by a national leader of All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu challenging an alleged defamatory documentary against him by the African Independent Television (AIT) has taken a new twist as the chairman of DAAR Communication Plc, High Chief Raymond Aleogho Dokpesi has indicated his intention to testify in the matter.
Other witnesses listed to testify in defence of the libellous documentary are Namure Joy Edoimioya, Chief Medan Tenke, Ajibola Adewusi, Olumide Idowu, Chief Stanley Odidi, Engr. Nwabueze and Dr. Stanley Bassey.
Tinubu had instituted the N150 billion suit against AIT before an Ikeja High Court for peddling false accusations about his personality in the documentary titled “Lion of Bourdilion”
According to him, the documentary was politically sponsored to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of the populace.
The presiding judge, Justice Iyabo Akinkugbe had on April 1 granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the AIT from further airing the documentary, pending the determination of the libel suit.
But in a statement of defence and counter-claim filed by AIT today, DAAR Communications Plc denied all the allegations made by Tinubu.
It stated that Tinubu founded his entire claims on a non existent ground or cause of action because contrary to his (Tinubu) claim, the documentary aired by its media outfit is not titled “The Lion of Bourdillon”, but “Unmasking the Real Tinubu”.
DAAR Plc in its statement of defence also averred that the documentary, in its honest opinion, was not false and neither was aired out of malice to the person of the claimant.
It averred further that as the fourth estate of the realm, it is empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution to at all times, hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people of Nigeria.
“The defendant avers that further to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, that it is empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution as the fourth estate of the realm, to at all times, hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people of Nigeria, and to be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people to ensure that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group, and that there is equal opportunity for every Nigerian to secure adequate means of livelihood and empowerment without discrimination.
“The defendant avers that the claimant is a former public office holder whose activities before, during and after leaving office are always in the public domain for proper scrutiny, in accordance with the intendment of the framers of the Nigerian Constitution.
“The defendant also avers that being in the business of information dissemination, it is aware that the contents of the said documentary are not news to many Nigerians, a fact very well known to the claimant, who took no steps to correct the information embedded in the print media and the social media platforms for years. For example, the pseudonym, “Lion of Bourdillon”, by which the claimant has come to be known, addressed and associated with, over the years, was not given to him, or coined by the defendant”, it averred.
It further stated that the said documentary, which it did not authored, was only aired for a given short period of time and was last aired on March 6, 2015, when it got wind that the defendant had filed a libel suit.
Also attached to the filed statement of defence and counter-claim was a list of documents to be relied on which comprises links to online publications.
Dokpesi in his statement on Oath also claimed that the defendant merely exercised its constitutional, statutory and social responsibility to inform, educate, entertain and provide a platform for national discourse, to all shades of opinion and political persuasion.
He said the documentary aired by the defendant under Section 22 of the Constitution merely states that the claimant (Tinubu) has breached some portions of the said fundamental objectives, and directive principles of state policy contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which the defendant, amongst others, is legally mandated to ensure the observance of, and same was not maliciously or falsely made against the claimant.