AFRICA

Liborous Oshoma: You Can’t Ask Farotimi To Negotiate While In Chains; A Level Playing Field Is Essential

Prominent lawyer and human rights activist, Liborous Oshoma, has shared his thoughts on the ongoing defamation case between Chief Afe Babalola and Dele Farotimi, pointing out that, despite any allegations, the evidence of the opposing party is crucial in determining the outcome.

In a recent interview on ARISE NEWS on Thurdsay, Oshoma stressed the importance of fairness in any legal negotiations, particularly in cases where one party is perceived to be at a disadvantage.

“You can’t ask a man who is in chains to come negotiate … You will be negotiating from a point of weakness, there is need to create a leveled playing field,” he remarked, emphasising the need for a balanced playing field before proceeding with talks.

On the matter of defamation, Oshoma noted that truth can serve as a defence under Section 377 of the Nigerian law.

“Section 377 says that truth is a defence to defamation and so you don’t know the evidence that the man on the other side has, even if you say oh he doesn’t have but he might have, just give him the benefit of doubt, you can always refile.”

Oshoma expressed support for efforts by elders like Peter Obi and Obasanjo to mediate the matter, suggesting that such mediation should be given a chance before further legal proceedings take place.

“Let all parties shield their sword for now. Since the elders like Peter Obi, Obasanjo, Bishop Coker have stepped into the matter, let them explore that possibility of mending fences,” he said.

In response to Farotimi’s request for the withdrawal of charges as a precondition for an apology, Oshoma acknowledged the potential benefits of mediation but highlighted the significance of Chief Babalola’s involvement. He argued that resolving the case with Babalola at the forefront would pave the way for other related cases to be settled.

“If Peter Obi and co had gone to visit him, if that is done successfully, I think others can be handled,” Oshoma explained. He also agreed that the charges should be withdrawn to allow for a fair negotiation.

“I completely agree that the charge first and foremost should be withdrawn so that you give him also a leveled playing ground to negotiate,” he added.

Oshoma further discussed the legal intricacies surrounding the case, particularly the actions of Justice Kekemeke, who had granted an exparte order for Farotimi’s books to be withdrawn from circulation. He defended the necessity of an exparte order, stating that it was intended to protect the claimant’s rights while pending the full hearing of the case.

“The exparte is necessary… there is need for the court to act and protect, pending when you call the other party to put him on notice, so its not that when you file an exparte, you will not hear the other party,” Oshoma explained, while questioning the effectiveness of the order given the book’s widespread availability.

Turning to concerns about the judiciary, Oshoma acknowledged that the case was casting a spotlight on the legal system. He asserted that errors in judicial decisions could be rectified through proper legal channels.

“If there is an error in a judgement… you can apply to court to correct that error,” he stated, adding that judges, too, were under scrutiny during trials. He also cautioned against the misuse of judicial power, urging for self-regulation within the legal community to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

On the issue of restraint, Oshoma condemned the decision to place Farotimi in handcuffs during his court appearances, emphasising that there was no justification for such treatment given the lack of violence or escape attempts.

“The handcuffs is only meant for someone who is violent so that he will not escape, but in this case, no violence has been shown,” he noted, suggesting that the use of handcuffs was an attempt to intimidate. “When the state wants to intimidate you, they do all sorts,” he added.

Faridah Abdulkadiri