The Limitation Of Our Utterance

Eric was three years old, growing rapidly but he was unable to speak, this caused lamentation to the parents of Eric, they spend both time resources to make him talk. When Eric began speaking, the parents organised a thanksgiving service in their church.

Most parents are always elated hearing their children beginning to speak. It is of interest knowing that humans were created with the communicating abilities. From child’s birth, they are plethora of ways that communication occurs between mother and child. Grown up humans also enjoys the ability of conveying ideas and expressing emotions.

Pathetically, great numbers of humans have suffered greatly from deficiency of not being able to speak. They yearn for help to salvage their plight which sometimes are possible and vice versa.

When it arises like that, no other means of communication is rendered than sign language and written notes. Having seen how palatable and wonderful it is having the ability to express our feelings, it is conclusive that we may use it anyhow as our heart desires?

In showing further how the gift of speaking is valued, Nigerian government by virtue of section 39 of the Nigerian constitution 1999 as Amended, Protects the interest of the citizen when expressing than views publicly. The above cited provision provides for ‘right to freedom of expression and the press. Section 39 (1) of constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (IFRN) provides as follows; ‘every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impact ideas and information without influence’ it is indeed an amorphous but very important provision of the law.

In a situation that one may choose not to limit the information he is passing to limited number of people but desire it to reach the general public, what will happen? Is he entitled doing so? Section 39 (2) of CFRN provides as follows ; without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section every person shall be entitled to own ,establish and operate any medium for dissemination of information , ideas opinions’

This provision will indeed serve as either a shield or a sword to any of the any party in dispute resolution and otherwise. As Nigerians, we are entitled to our rights and privileges in our own society including this freedom of expression, but the questions have always been; this freedom of expression and press is it conclusive? Does it not have limitations? What could serve as impediments of the foregoing provisions?

It is here that we should know that ‘the length of our food (freedom of expression) is being measured and is capable of measurement’. As I swing my arms, I should be careful because where it stops another person arms begins, meaning that the end of my right is the beginning of another person’s right since we all have this rights. We have to use our personal rights in a way that would not conflict or trample on another person’s right.

It should be noted that failure to comply by honouring and respecting other rights in our utterances will amount to defamation which may lead to a criminal or civil action depending on the perspective and jurisdiction. Uttering words that are not worthy hearing would bring a civil action under the tort of determination against the person uttering the unjust words.

It is here a necessity knowing the meaning of the term ‘defamation’ so as to help us bring out the thrust and material particular of this discussion. Defamation consists in the publication of the statement, which injures the reputation of the person to whom it refers to lower him in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society. Galley’s definition on his book “Slander and libel” that was adopted in the supreme court case of Benue Printing & Publishing Corp v Gwagwanda (1989) 4NWLR (pt116) defines defamation as follows: “defamation consist of any imputation which may tend to lower the plaintiffs’ (complainant or petitioner) in the estimation of the right thinking member of the society generally, cut off from the society or expose him to danger, contempt or ridicule”.

The utterance of defamatory words may allege criminality, dishonesty or cruelty. It should be noted however that it will still be defamatory even if the statement did not impute misconduct or moral turpitude on the part of the plaintiff provided it has the tendency to injury his reputation.

As we noted earlier, communication may be either oral or written. In respect of the instant case, is imperative to show that defamation may be either libel or slander depending on its manner of commission. When the defamatory words are written down or expressed in a permanent form, it would amount to libel. On the other hand, if it is expressed in a transient form or spoken, it will amount to slander.

Under section 373 of the Nigerian criminal code Act, slander is considered a crime alongside with libel. One the aggrieved party has been able to show that:

The words were defamatory
The words referred to the plaintiff ( complaint or petitioner)

The words were published and that he suffered actual damages, he can institute and maintain an action against the one who made the utterance.

The questions that should be bored in mind, to ponder and mediate upon include: will a post on social media like Facebook and twitter be regarded as being defamatory? Will this single act suffice an action in defamatory? Can an aggrieved party claim damages based on what has been published online? The answers to these questions may be in the affirmative. It could amount to defamation and damages can be claimed. Also, instances abounds where many individuals say all sort of things that they desire without restrain, can they not be hold responsible for their actions? It should be noted that, they can account for such utterance so long as they have infringed on the right of another individual, they will account for it.

Generally speaking, slander is not actionable per se (without prove of any actual damage) but they are instances that slander will become actionable per se. the aggrieved party need not proved he suffered actual damages under the following instances.

Imputation of crime: a general implication of criminality without reference to a specific offence is enough to make an actionable without proof of actual damage

Imputation of diseases : words which impute that the plaintiff is suffering from a contagious diseases is actionable per se because it has the tendency to cause other persons shun and avoid him or exclude him from the society

Imputation of being unchaste and adultery to a woman or a girl is actionable per se because it tends to tarnish the image the parson in the society. Being Unchaste is held to include lesbianism

Imputation of unfitness or incompetence affecting the reputation of the complainant in a way of any office presently held by him or in the way of any lawful possession calling, made or business carried by him is actionable without proof of actual damages.

The one uttering these defamatory words may only hide under the defences of

Justification – meaning that what he was saying was true and showing that it really happen not a mere false allegation.

That the complaint consented the publication
It was a mere (fair) comment on the issue of public interest

He recap what the court said what the member of the Nigerian made, qualified or absolute privilege will protect the one making the publication.

Without prejudice and discrimination to a particular sex or gender, religion or any ethnic group, there is no reason for us continuing doing things that our consciences tell is it is wrong. If we may ask, morally, is it clean? Is it scripturally right? I will not comment on the scriptural basis of any other religion than Christianity on grounds of incompetency regarding how their faith works but I doubt them prompting defamation in any way or by possible means.

In Christianity, weighing this subject matter in the imaginary scale of the scriptures, to what extent is libel or slander a sin in the bible? In the bible, libel and slander are used interchangeably with false tongues. In gaining Jehovah’s approval, I t is a must to shun this act of defamation. Psalm 15:1-3 categorically states this “O Jehovah, who may be a guest in your tent? Who may reside in your holy mountain?  The one who is walking faultlessly, practicing what is right, And speaking the truth in his heart,  He does not slander with his tongue, He does nothing bad to his neighbour, And he does not defame his friends, Whoever does these things will never be shaken”. You can imagine the blessings that come from restraining ourselves from defamation especially slander that is very common.

Slander constitutes a stumbling block to others, particularly to the one slandered. The seriousness of slander is here emphasized by pointing out that in some instances false charges might actually lead to execution. False witnesses have many times been instrumental in causing the death of innocent persons.

Sometimes matters are confidential, but the slanderer delights in revealing them to others who have no right to know. The slanderer gets pleasure in revealing things that cause sensation. The one listening to slander is also wrong and is damaging himself. A person may be turned away from his friends because of some defamatory remark about them made by a slanderer, and enmities and divisions may develop.

To sum it up, the tort of defamation seeks to protect a person’s reputation from unjustified attack either by written or spoken words. The basis of this tort is that every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation and estimation in which he stands in the society of his fellow citizens. Nevertheless, the court has to strike an acceptable balance between the interest in protecting a person’s reputation and the interest in the freedom of speech.

Edikan Ekanem is a student of university of Uyo and a columnist, he can be reached at: 08130015006, [email protected]