IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY af) COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO-ABUJA ON THE 1° DAY OF JUNE 2018 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE CHIZOBA N. OJI SRE THIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE CHIZOBA N. OI PRESIDING JUDGE SUIT NO: FCT\HC\Cv\2602\12 BETWEEN: DR. MRS. NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, CFR __...... PLAINTIFF AND 1, POINTBLANK NEWS COMMUNICATIONS INC. ) 2. JACKSON UDE DEFENDANTS 3. CHURCHILL UMOREN f JUDGMENT By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 5" March 2012, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: 1. The sum of NS, 000, 000, 000.00 (Five Billion Naira) only being general damages for libel and the sum of NS, 000, 000, 000 (Five Billion Naira) only being exemplary damages for libel; 2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from Publishing further defamatory articles on the Plaintiff through the 1" Defendant website or by means of any other medium. The matter was first heard before Oniyangi J (as he then was) before his elevation to the Court of Appeal which necessitated a tanger ct this matter to s my court. The matter was thus first heard before me on ap Oct O18, so ite pm oy nese, Z “0;On the said date the Defendants were absent and unrepresented. Mr. Munachiso Michael for the Plaintiff informed the court that before Hon. Justice Oniyangi the Plaintiff had closed her case before the Defendants appeared and they proposed a settlement which had not materialized on anything concrete before the matter was transferred to this court. He sought a date for trial to commence de novo and should settlement succeed, they would report to the court. The court thus adjourned the matter to 29" January 2015 for definite hearing and ordered hearing notices to the Defendants. PW1 Paul Nwabuikwu the sole witness for the Plaintiff began his testimony on 31° October 2016. He adopted his witness statement on oath on 5" March 2012 wherein he deposed inter alia that he is the Senior Assistant on media to the Honourable Federal Minister for Finance - Coordinating Minister for the Economy, the Plaintiff (as she then was) That the Plaintiff is a former Managing Director of the World Bank and enjoys an impeccable reputation as a leading, transparent international economist, and had received several awards, commendations and honours in recognition of the excellent services she has been rendering both to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the international community as a whole. That the 1° and 2” Defendants are the publishers of an online internet news report known as Point Blank News which focuses mainly on developments in the public sector of the Nigerian economy. That the 2" Defendant is the alter ego of the 1* Defendant while the 3 Defendant is the Chief Editor of the 1'* Defendant’s PointBlankNews.com. That the Defendants by an online publication at http: /{pointblankriews, com on the 0, 10" of January 2012, published the following words against the Plaintiff ©“OKONJO IWEALA BUYS N1.2 BILLION ABUJA MANSION! As Nigerians groan over fuel subsidy, one of the proponents and architect of the controversial policy, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has just purchased a massive home in Maitama, Abuja for a whooping N1.2 Billion, pointbalnknews.com investigation has revealed. The Finance Minister allegedly paid for the property located at No 3 Nwaora close, off Gana Street, Abuja in November 2011, according to a source at the Property Management office. Okonjo Iweala through a United States based company owned by her brother Chi-Chi Okonjo ~ Georgetown Consultancy, allegedly pocketed about $2 Billon in commission in the last debt buy back deal under the Presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration. Pointblanknews.com sources hinted Okonjo-lweala forced her brother's firm, down the throats of the Finance Ministry, and even the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), under Mallam Naisp; El-Rufai when she was minister under Obasanjo. On that Nwaora close, off Gana Street Maitama, Abuja, are five massive properties with price tag between N2.25 Billon and N1.4 Billon. “We still have other properties worth N1.25 Billion, N1.3 Billon and N1.4 Billion. The one we sold to madam was for N1.2 Billion” an Estate agent with EFAB Properties confided in Pointblanknews.com. Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-lweala was Managing Director of the World Bank From June to August 2006, she was Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, overseeing Nigeria’s External Relations. From July 2003 to June 2006, she served as Minister of Finance and Economy of Nigeria and Head of Nigeria’s much- acclaimed Presidential Economic team responsible for implementing a comprehensive home grown economic reform program. “I” level employees or vice president of the World Bank earn about $289, 540. Senior vice presidents and managing directors who have made to the “K” class received as much as $311,000. The president’s pay, when you include expenses, lands in the mid-$400,000 rangeThe Coordinating minister's mansion is a 7 bedroom duplex with boy's quarters and a swimming pool, a massive Masters Bedroom with an adjacent dubbed “Madam’s Bedroom. The mansion, which is still furnished, could wear a tag of over N2 billon after furnishing. It has @ red clay roof. The property is complete with top shelf marble imported from Italy, gold trimmings and chandeliers in the living rooms, bedrooms and a very expensive kitchen. Sources told pointblankenews.com that the property was built by a popular Abuja estate mogul, and owner of EFab Properties Limited, Fabian Nwaora A source at the EFAB Properties who referred to Dr. lweala as “Madam” told Pointblanknews.com that the mansion was the first to be purchased among several others in the estate. “Madam paid for the property long before others were even completed and so that one is out of the market. We only have the ones on No. 1, No. 2, No. 4 available”. That deal led to her sack by the Obasanjo’s administration, when he discovered that Okonjo Iweala made tons of cash from the deal at the expense of Nigeria. She was removed from the economic team, and redeployed to the Foreign Affairs ministry. Aside Chi-Chi Okonjo who gets multi-million dollar contracts in Nigeria without due process, through his sister, Ngozi, another very close friend of the finance minister who gets patronage is Bimbo Ogunseitan. In 2004, she sent a letter dated March 18, 2004, HMF/FMF/003, addressed to Mallam Nasir Ahmed el-Rufai, OFR, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, saying: “lam in receipt of your letter dated 15" March 2004 requesting an approval for a RUNNING OPERATIONAL REVIEW ROR) on the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory’s Operations. In your letter you stated that a consultant would be hired to review the internal organization processes of the FCT and the day to day finances of the FCT. ‘ign Coun Cary Gy2. Please accept this letter as an approval for the Running Operational Review on the request indicated above 3. Do accept the assurance of my continued highest regard. Yours Sincerely (Signed) Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance.” Pointblacknews.com learnt that the minister as Minister of Finance under the government of Olusegun Obasanjo, Okonjo-Iweala steered public contracts to her brother worth up to $50 million, with the help of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mr. Nasir El-rufai, yet another Wikileaks US cable issued in 2006 says. The contracts were said to have been awarded to the man, identified only as “Jonion”, for consulting work for the ministry. Previously, she pursued a 21-year career as a development economist at the World Bank, where she held the post of Vice President and Corporate Secretary. This included two tours of duty (Six years) working in the East Asia Region, the last tour (1997-2000) as Country Directory Malaysia, Mongolia, Laos and Cambodia during the East Asia financial crisis; two duty tours in the Middle East Region, the last (2000-2003) as Director, Operations (deputy vice -president) of the region. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala also served as Director of Institutional Change and Strategy (1995-1997). In this post, she assisted with the implementation of the Bank's reform agenda. From 1989 to 1991 she was Special assistant to the Senior Vice President, Operations, an assignment that enabled participation in high level policy formulation and discussions for countries as diverse as China and Burkina Faso.” That the 1" Defendant records at least one million hits every day meaning that not less than one million persons visit the site on a daily basis worldwide and have access to the said publication. That the words as contained in the publication referred to and were understood to refer to the Plaintiff, as her name and her office as Minister of e ance wer 1 inh gg clearly stated in the publication. 6%, % Gin. 0%,That in their natural and ordinary meaning, the said words mean and were understood to mean that she is corrupt, pretentious, unfit to be a Cabinet Minister, not living up to expectation as former World Bank Vice President, engaged in abuse of office for personal gain, has no integrity and is a clog in the fight against corruption. Consequently the Plaintiff's reputation has been severely damaged and she has suffered considerable distress and embarrassment. The particulars of which are:- (i) That the Plaintiff's international reputation as a seasoned and transparent economist and banker has been called into question and she has since the Publication been inundated with calls from colleagues all over the world seeking explanation in respect of the said publication. (ii) Since the publication of the defamatory stories about the Plaintiff, she has experienced a considerable amount of resentment and disdain as is manifest in the many comments posted on the website of the Defendants in response to the publication. (iii)At the relevant time of the publication the internet had hundreds of millions of users all of whom had free and open access to the words complained of. A large but unquantifiable number of users of the internet read the said publication. That the words were defamatory to the knowledge of the Defendants, actual or implied or the Defendants were reckless in not taking steps to ascertain the truth or falsity of the publication. That the Defendants knew that once the article was published on the internet it could and would be accessed by hundreds and millions of people around the world who would have daily access oO e, o to the ii et. ‘0 the intern 4%That in fact internet subscribers who do not visit the 1* Defendant's website had automatic access to the publication by means of its republication by a host of other websites and through internet search engine alerts. That the Defendants knew and intended that the publication should be so republished and/or such republication was the natural and probable consequence of the Defendant's publication on the internet That the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants NS, 000, 000, 000 (Five Billion Naira) as general damages for libel and N5, 000, 000, 000 (Five Billion Naira) as exemplary or aggravated damages for libel. Photocopy of the offending publication and certificate of compliance were admitted through the witness and marked Exhibit P1 and P1A respectively. Another photocopy of one page publication of 11” January 2012 and the certificate of compliance by the Defendant were admitted and marked Exhibits P2 and P2A respectively. A photocopy of a letter dated January 11" 2012 from one Chief Dr. Fabian O. Nwaora addressed to “to whom it may concern” denying sale of any such property to the Plaintiff at the material time was admitted and marked Exhibit P3. Therein it was also expressly stated that at no time did the Pointblanknews.com interview Chief Fabian Nwaora or any of his staff on the sale of the property. The original exhibits tendered in this case were earlier tendered and admitted before Oniyangi J (as he then was) but the said exhibits could not be found to be retendered before this court as same were not forwarded to this court with the case file when trial was to start de novo. The Defendants never appeared before this court. Despite. hearing notices ob thu dcharged by se the court. The 1* and 3" Defendants also filed no defence. The 2” Defendant ~, “tt & served on them. They did not cross examine PW1 whofiled a statement of defence before Hon. Justice Onyiangi but abandoned same before this court. The three Defendants were foreclosed from defending this action. In his final written address of 12th July 2017 Munachiso Michael Esq. learned counsel for the Plaintiff raised two issues for the court's determination thus: “1. Whether upon the facts and materials placed before this honourable court, the Plaintiff has proven the existence of a libellous publication against her. 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for libel and if so, the quantum of the damages she is entitled to” On issue No. 1 learned counsel relied on the definition of defamation in Black's law Dictionary (1999) Seventh Edition; West Publishing Co. USA at page 427, and INLAND BANK (NIG) PLC V F.&S CO. LTD (2010) 15 NWLR Pt 1216; pg 395 at 409 paragraph A-C. He submitted that defamation could be in two major forms: Libel and slander. That libel is committed when defamatory matter is published in a “permanent” form or in a form which is deemed to be permanent. See Gatley on Libel and Slander (1998) 8" Edition; Sweet & Maxwell London page 68, the Supreme court in SKYE BANK PLC V AKINPELU (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt 1198) page 179 at 204 paragraph D. He submitted that the tort of libel is actionable per se. In other words, every libel is of itself a wrong in regard to which the law imputes general damages. In other words if a Plaintiff proves that a libel has been published of him without legal justification, his cause of action is complete. See Supreme Court in ODUWOLE V WEST (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt 1203) pg 598 at 614 paragraph C-D; 623 paragraphs G-H. %Therefore for a party to succeed in a claim for defamation the following elements must be proved. 1) That there is a publication of the material complained of by the Defendant 2) That the publication was false. 3) That the publication refers conclusively to the Plaintiff 4) That the publication is defamatory of the Plaintiff 5) That it was the Defendant that published the defamatory words. Learned counsel submitted that the Plaintiff had proved all the above mentioned elements. It was submitted that the Defendants having failed to enter appearance or file a defence have admitted the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff. Citing Supreme Court on M/V GONGOLA HOPE V SMURFIT CASES LTD (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt 388) 1605 at 1026 paragraphs C-H, the court was urged to accept uncontroverted facts as pleaded by the Plaintiff and act on them. Thus the court was urged to find in favour of the Plaintiff. On issue no. 2, it was submitted, relying on ODUWOLE’S case supra that libel is actionable per se, the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to general damages having proved that the Defendants published a libellous publication about her. It was submitted that in assessing damages to be awarded for libel, the courts will consider the following factors i) The social standing of the Plaintiff ii) The whole conduct of the Defendant from the time the libel was published down to the time the court gives its verdict. The court may consider what the Defendant’s conduct was before the commencement of the suit and in court during trial of the suit. iii) The impact of the libel on persons who read the same.It was submitted that in awarding damages the court ought to take into cognisance the assessment postulation in ODUWOLE V WEST (supra) and consider the loss of social esteem, natural grief and distress caused to the Plaintiff in computing the damages and thus award substantial damages to the Plaintiff. | have considered the evidence before me-which is only that of Mr. Paul Nwabuikwu, PW1 who testified for the Plaintiff. The Defendants despite service of the originating processes and hearing notices on them, failed, refused or neglected to appear in court to defend the action against them. The 2’ Defendant hitherto filed a defence before Hon. Justice Oniyangi (now JCA) abandoned same having not testified nor called any witness before me. See UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V JIMBA (2001) 12 NWLR 505 at 50 on abandonment of pleadings. The Defendants thus left the evidence of the Plaintiff unchallenged and uncontroverted The law is trite that where evidence is uncontroverted, the onus of proof is satisfied on minimal proof since there is nothing on the other side of the imaginary scale. See BURAIMOH V BAMGBOSE (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt 109) 352. EASTERN BREWERIES PLC, AWO OMAMMA & ORS V HENRY NWOKORO (2012) LPELR-7949 CA; RAJCO INT'L LTD V LE CAVALIER MOTEL & RESTAURANTS LTD & ORS (2016) LPELR-40082 (CA) Again evidence which is not challenged is deemed admitted. The court is also free to act on it provided it is cogent and relevant. See ONYIA V MBIKO & ANOR (2014) LPELR-2302 CA. The case of the Plaintiff is one of defamation —libel, infact In determining this case | shall adopt the two issues raed ofa, Munachiso Michael Esq. the Plaintiff's learned counsel 10(3) That the defamatory statement was published By publication in this sense is meant that the defamatory statement was made known to some other person(s) other than the Plaintiff of whom it was written. This is because a person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold of him. See NSIRIM V NSIRIM. (2002) FWLR (Pt 96) 433; 2002 2 SCNJ 46; In AYENI V ADESINA (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt 370) 1451 at 1474 paragraph C-H (CA) The Court of Appeal per Mshelia JCA, held that:- “| have had the privilege of reading the case of UGO V OKAFOR (supra). The case involved publication in a newspaper. It is worthy to note the observation of Tobi JCA (as he then was) at page 561 paragraphs A-D of UGO V OKAFOR (supra)... AWONIY] AND OTHERS V THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ROSICRUCIAN ORDER (AMORC) 1990 6 NWLR (Pt 154) 42, this court held as follows: 1) The law is that a libel does not require publication to more than one person 2) It is not necessary in all cases to prove that the libellous matter was actually brought to the notice of some third party. If it is made a matter of reasonable inference that such was the fact, a prima facie case of publication will be established. This is particularly so when a book, magazine, or newspaper containing a libel is sold by the Defendant. 3) A libel in any of such documents like a book, a magazine or a newspaper or post card (posted) is therefore prima facie evidence of publication by the proprietor, editor, printer and publisher and any person who sells, or distributes In the present case the publication complained about was published online at http/pointblanknews.com to over a million viewers worldwide daily including the PW1. There is therefore no doubt that the “a was published 14 ‘iand that the publication was by the Defendants. | am therefore satisfied upon a preponderance of evidence that the Plaintiff has proved the existence of a libellous publication against her by the Defendants On this issue | find in favour of the Plaintiff. On issue No. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages and if so the quantum of damages she is entitled to. | agree with Mr. Munachiso Michael that libel is actionable per se. See ODUWOLE V WEST (supra) as referred to by him at paragraph 4.13 of his final written address and on the factors which the court should take into consideration in computing damages for libel. The assessment of damages in a successful libel action is not dependent on any established rules. it depends upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. The object of awarding damages is to compensate the Plaintiff for any losses or injury he has suffered or sustained Exemplary damages convey a punitive element. Its object is to punish the Defendant. In deserving cases the court will award exemplary damages See HON. JUSTICE ALOYSIUS O.H UKACHUKWU V CHIEF HOPE UZODIMMA & ANOR (2007) LPELR-8200 CA. A Claimant need not prove his unblemished reputation before the false publication, because in defamation cases the court generally proceeds on a presumption of the unblemished character of the Claimant i.e. the law presumes his character is good until the contrary is proved, and the Claimant can safely rest on that assumption. See GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER AT PARAGRAPH 34.60. There is a presumption of injury to the Claimant's feeling once it is proved that libelous material was published of and concerning him/her. Sée Mac Gregor on Damages 18" Edition. "orp AinThe court may presume malice by the Defendant’s conduct generally but particularly by other derogatory statements made of the Plaintiff by the Defendant and Defendant's persistence in the accusation and by lack of apology. See WESTERN PUBLISHING COY LTD V FAGBEMI (2015) LPELR-24735 CA. In CROSS RIVER STATE NEWSPAPER COY LTD V ON! & 6 ORS 1995 1 NWLR Part 371 page 270, the court held that the Plaintiff need not testify personally to succeed in proving her case. Having considered the weighty and uncontroverted evidence of PW1 which | believe and act upon, which is to the effect: 1) That the Plaintiff is a former Managing Director of the World Bank and was Federal Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy at the time of filing the suit. That the Plaintiff enjoys an impeccable reputation as a leading transparent international economist and has received several international awards, commendations and honours in recognition of the excellent services she has been rendering both to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to the international community as a whole. 2) The conduct of the Defendant at the time the libel was published-their nonchalance and recalcitrant attitude in not even bothering to defend this suit in court or retract the publication despite notice that same was false. 3 The impact of the libel on persons who read them. See the comments of Sahato Mahdi and Dee Don in paragraph 8 of the witness statement on oath of PW1. It is my view that the Plaintiff is both entitled to general damages and exemplary damages. Accordingly 161. | award to the Plaintiff general damages in the sum of N50M (Fifty Million Naira) and exemplary damages in the sum of N150m (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) for libel against the Defendants jointly and severally. 2. | order a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing further words defamatory of the Plaintiff through the Defendants’ website or any written medium. Michael: We are very grateful. We do not ask for costs Court: No costs awarded Hon. Justicé Chizoba N. Oji Hon. Judge v7