The CPJ says the conviction of the journalists for defamation "sends a chilling message to the Nigerian press and highlights the urgent need for authorities to reform the country's laws and ensure journalism is not criminalised."
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a non-profit organisation that focuses on promoting press freedom worldwide, has condemned the trial and conviction of two Nigerian journalists for defamation.
In a statement dated 14 April, the CPJ said the two Nigerian journalists - Gidado Shuaib and Alfred Olufemi - "should never have been charged, let alone convicted, for publishing an investigative report about a factory."
It said their conviction "sends a chilling message to the Nigerian press and highlights the urgent need for authorities to reform the country's laws and ensure journalism is not criminalised."
A magistrate's court in Ilorin, Kwara State, on 7 February, convicted the journalists for publishing a defamatory article against Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited.
In the contested publication published by an online platform, News Digest, the article said Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited, a firm located at Kilometre 4, Ajase-Ipo along Offa Road, Amberi Village, Kwara State, allowed its staff members to smoke Indian hemp freely.
A.S Muhammad, the trial magistrate, said in the verdict that "the defendants had a common intention in publishing" the damaging article "and must have intended the natural consequences."
Mr Muhammad further ruled that "the elements of defamation have been established by the prosecution."
The magistrate sentenced the journalists to two months imprisonment with an option of N40,000 fine on one of the two counts preferred against them - the offence of conspiracy.
He sentenced each of them to a fine of N60,000 on the count of defamation or three months imprisonment in default of payment.
The magistrate clarified that "each of the convicts is to pay a fine of N100,000 only for the offences of conspiracy and defamation respectively, having been convicted."
The journalists have since paid the fine.
CPJ condemned the court decision following the PREMIUM TIMES publication earlier in April.
Angela Quintal, CPJ's Africa program coordinator, from New York, quoted in the organisation's statement also condemned the method of bringing the journalists to custody.
The CPJ recalled that before the charges were filed, police leveraged their access to call data and briefly detained a News Digest web developer and at least two other journalists in their efforts to locate the journalists.
"The telecom surveillance used to bring the journalists into custody, followed by a more than three-year-long trial, demonstrates the lengths Nigerian authorities will go to arrest and prosecute the press," Ms Quintal said.
CPJ noted two ongoing suits instituted against the Nigerian Communications Commission in 2017 and 2018 "over regulations granting warrantless access to telecom subscribers' information".
Journalists fault court decision
Meanwhile, the journalists have faulted the court decision and vowed to appeal against the judgement to have it overturned.
Their lawyer, Ibraheem Gambari, in a statement shared with PREMIUM TIMES, expressed his clients' "confidence in the merit of the appeal."
The defence lawyer pointed out that the judgement was erroneously based on "the police (a report that) had already found them (the two journalists) culpable long before they were invited to state their own side of the story."
Contrary to the court's findings, Mr Gambari argued that a former employee of Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited, "testified before the court that he was not only a witness to how smoking of Indian hemp pervaded the site but equally, it was the persistent smoking of the Indian hemp that informed his decision to sever his employment with the company."
"We strongly believe that justice will be achieved at appeal so that patriotic youthful elements in the society like our clients will not be discouraged from embarking on their respective altruistic endeavours," Mr Gambari said.
A former worker at the company, Adepoju Adedotun, testified in defence of the defendants, confirming that many labourers usually took Indian hemp on site to be able to do the strenuous work they were engaged for.
Mr Adedotun, who said he was engaged as a casual worker, told the court that he had to quit the job because he could not smoke Indian hemp which he said the job required. He said he also left the company because he wanted to pursue his academic aspirations.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, he confirmed that he did not report the smoking of Indian hemp at the company to any law enforcement agency.
The magistrate rejected his testimony and chose to believe the police which claimed it investigated and found out that Indian hemp smoking never took place at the company.
Reacting to the judgement, Mr Olufemi similarly expressed bewilderment that the magistrate ignored vital evidence that exonerated him and his colleague.
He lamented that the outcome of the trial was depressing, owing to the overwhelming evidence by a former employee of Hillcrest "who boldly testified against the company before the court. It takes courage to come forward to do that."
Mr Olufemi, a multiple award-winning journalist, expressed concerns over the implication of the judgement on press freedom in Nigeria.
He said the decision would undermine accountability journalism in Nigeria, adding that it would embolden powerful people in public institutions as well as big corporations to break the law.
Background
In the publication complained about by the company, Mr Olufemi wrote that Hillcrest factory, a rice milling company, was "permitting its workers to smoke Indian hemp and tobacco on duty."
The company said a key consequence of the defamatory article came when a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based company, Aras Group LLC, withdrew a loan facility it was about to issue to Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited.
The prosecution's first witness had told the court that the Aras Group LLC drew Hillcrest's attention to the damaging article, saying "they would not deal with (a) company that is involved in illicit drugs activities."
It was the loss of the loan facility from the Aras Group that triggered the defamation suit against the journalists.
The Hillcrest management filed a petition at the Kwara State Police Command, demanding an investigation into the allegations.
On 12 November 2019, Messrs Shuaib and Olufemi were arraigned on charges of conspiracy and defamation. The offences, the prosecution said, breached sections 97 and 392 of the Penal Code Law.
In proving its case, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered eight exhibits.
At the close of the prosecution's case, on 5 April 2022, the defendants filed a no-case submission, urging the court to dismiss the case against them on the grounds that the prosecution failed to lead any incriminating evidence against them.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
In its ruling, however, the court dismissed the defendants' no-case submission, affirming that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them.
The court then ordered the defendants to enter their defence.
Defence
The defendants jointly called only one witness, Adepoju Adedotun, and tendered six exhibits in a bid to extricate themselves from the case.
The two journalists insisted in their separate written statements to the police that their report was balanced and fair. They pleaded justification by insisting that their article was substantially true, and qualified privilege in that their reportage was done in the public interest.
Mr Olufemi said he worked as an undercover labourer at the factory for four days when he confirmed that "casual workers are not stopped from smoking Indian hemp". To achieve a balanced reportage, Mr Olufemi said he called the company's hotline and a masculine voice confirmed the allegation when "confronted" with facts.
In arguing their case in their final written address, their lawyer argued that the Nigerian Supreme Court had "decriminalised" defamation.
They submitted two issues in their final written address before the court. The two issues were whether the prosecution had proven the offences as charged against the defendants and whether the defendants were not covered by the defence of justification and privilege.
Citing section 39 of the constitution, the defendants contended that the criminalisation of defamation was improper and antithetical to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression.
But the magistrate, in his verdict, held that the defendants' arguments were "clear attempts to distort or arm-twist the facts and decisions of the Supreme Court."
He also rejected the journalists' defence of justification and qualified privilege.
