N150bn Libel Suit: Dokpesi, Seven Others to Testify against Tinubu

Former Chairman of Daar Communications Plc, Chief Raymond Aleogho Dokpesi

Akinwale Akintunde

The former Chairman of Daar Communications Plc, owners of Africa Independent Television (AIT), Chief Raymond Aleogho Dokpesi and seven others have been listed as witnesses to testify in the N150 billion libel suit filed by the National Leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Bola Tinubu, against AIT.

Others listed to testify against Tinubu are Namure Joy Edoimioya, Chief Medan Tenke, Ajibola Adewusi, Olumide Idowu, Chief Stanley Odidi, Mr. Nwabueze and Dr. Stanley Bassey.

Tinubu, a former Lagos State governor had instituted the N150 billion suit against AIT before an Ikeja High Court for peddling false accusations against 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 public.

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 on Tuesday, it denied each and every allegation of facts as contained in the claimant’s amended statement of claim.

It stated that Tinubu (defendant) 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 Bourdilon,’ but ‘Unmasking the Real Tinubu.’

AIT 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, 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.

According to AIT, the said documentary, which it did not author, 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