The right to free speech is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended), but this right is not without its limitations. One of these limitations is the restriction on communications that would constitute defamation, which is a tort(a type of civil wrong that can at the same time be classified as a crime) .

This article will be focusing on the topics of :-

– The definition of defamation under Nigerian Law.

– Required ingredients of defamation.

– Types of defamation.

– Defences to an allegation of defamation.

What is defamation as defined under Nigerian Law?

Defamation is defined under Nigerian Law is any written or spoken false communication about a person (an individual or corporate body) from one party to another party carrying the legal effect of exposing the person spoken about to either :-

– Public contempt.

– Scorn.

– Humiliation/Shame.

– Character/Reputation assassination/lowered estimations & opinions of the person spoken about in the minds of right thinking persons.

– Affecting the goodwill of the persons spoken about in their trades, businesses, livelihoods, or professions. 

What are the required ingredients of defamation under Nigerian Law?

To successfully prove an allegation of defamation, the following ingredients must be shown to exist:-

– A communication which is at face value, defamatory (damaging & untrue) must have been made.

– The defamatory communication must have specifically referred to the party alleging defamation.

– The defamatory communication must have been published to a 3rd party.

What are the types of defamation under Nigerian Law ?

Defamation under Nigerian Law is either strictly :-

– Slander – Defamatory communications that consist of spoken words , signs or gestures.

– Libel – Defamatory communications that are in written, typed or in readable formats e.g. False accusations or written unconfirmed assertions of fact. 

How are damages determined in defamation matters?

Under Nigerian Law, defamation (libel in particular) is a tort actionable per se which means that the publication of a defamation communication is presumed by its very existence to have caused damage to an affected party.

Can dead people legally sue for defamation under Nigerian Law?

Yes they can. This is possible through their estate either under a probate grant or in administration where they died intestate (without a will being drafted).

Which specific examples of communications would pass for defamation under Nigerian Law?

Examples of communications that would pass for defamation under Nigerian Law include :-

– Publishing communications stating a party is guilty of a crime punishable with an improvement term.

– Publishing untrue communications about a party having a communicable or sexually transmitted disease.

– Publishing untrue communications about a person who practices a certain profession that can affect their professional competence estimation in the minds of right-thinking members of the public.

What are the acceptable defences to an allegation of defamation under Nigerian Law?

Some of the acceptable defences to defamation under Nigerian Law include :-

– A mistake of fact :- This means being able to prove that the party making the communication honestly believed at the time of making those communications that the communications were true. 

– Mere vulgar abuse/Name-calling :- In online communications common with the internet era, this is the most frequent form of communication that may be deemed defamatory. This would however not be considered as such as the publishers are deemed to be making such abusive communications in the heat of the moment and not with the intent to cause damage within the contemplation of the Cybercrime Act of Nigeria.

– Comments on matters of public interest :- The would include comments on public policies , matters of public interest (like election petitions) or executive decisions not constituting sedition, incitement or treason. 

– Innocent Dissemination :- As in the case of courier companies conveying defamatory written communications or live media (TV and radio) shows where guests might publish defamatory communications to the viewing or listening public( based on the “Don’t shoot the messenger” principle).

Depositors of the collapsed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) got a reprieve on Sunday after federal regulators assured that bank’s deposits will get a backing, minimizing the impact of the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

SVB, which was shut down on Friday, sent shock waves across markets as uncertainty swelled about trapped depositors’ fund. But the decision, which was announced on Sunday, has put calm on the whirlwind.

“Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer,” The U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., said in a joint statement Sunday evening.

According to the agencies, the government would back Silicon Valley Bank deposits beyond the federally insured ceiling of $250,000. SVB holds $209 billion in assets and more than $175 billion in deposits, making it the 16^th largest bank in the US.

The agencies said that as part of the intervention, senior management of SVB will be removed.

SVB UK, which holds around £5.5 billion ($6.66 billion) in loans and around £6.7 billion ($8.11 billion) worth of deposits, would be purchased the British bank HSBC for just £1 ($1.21). A statement from U.K. finance minister Jeremy Hunt said the government has worked urgently to deliver on the promise of protecting the tech sector by finding a solution that will provide SVB UK’s customers with confidence.

“Today the government and the Bank of England have facilitated a private sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK; this ensures customer deposits are protected and can bank as normal, with no taxpayer support. I am pleased we have reached a resolution in such short order,” he said.

The US agencies have intervened without congressional action, following the invocation of “systemic risk exception,” by Washington officials. Systemic risk exception allows for the joint approval from the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury in consultation with Biden.

US President Joe Biden said late Sunday that he was pleased with the move by the US agencies.

“The American people and American businesses can have confidence that their bank deposits will be there when they need them,” he said in a statement. “I am firmly committed to holding those responsible for this mess fully accountable and to continuing our efforts to strengthen oversight and regulation of larger banks so that we are not in this position again.”

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank exposed several tech companies to risk of losing their funds parked in the bank. Streaming company Roku said it had 26% of its $1.9 billion total cash stashed in the troubled bank. Some 250 British tech CEOs had warned on Sunday that SVB’s failure would present an existential threat to startups and backers. The U.K. deal will likely calm markets and nerves of start-ups and their backers.

NBC reported that several SVB’s customers in the US and the UK breathed sigh of relief following the regulators’ announcement. Some of them had frozen their operations in anticipation of what would come next for a bank that held much of their assets.

The federal agencies also took over Signature, a New York-based crypto-financing bank, which also ran into trouble. They said on Sunday that a similar guarantee for Signature Bank depositors would be instituted in the process of shutting it down.

The SVB failure, which is the biggest in the US since 2008, has triggered concern about the wellbeing of other banks.  A senior Treasury official told reporters Sunday that regulators are watching other banks that may have similar issues. NBC reported the official, who did not rule out the possibility of finding a buyer for the troubled banks, as saying that as part of coordinated interagency efforts to backstop any further bank failures, the Fed has set up an emergency lending program to give banks expanded and quick access to funds “in times of stress.”