Nigerian Eye
EFCC appeals judgment awarding Olu Agunloye N10m over defamatory publication
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has
appealed the judgement of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) high court ordering
it to pay Olu Agunloye, former minister of power, N10 million in damages over a
defamatory publication.
In an 11-ground notice of appeal filed before the Abuja
division of the court of appeal, the anti-graft agency asked the appellate
court to set aside the entire judgement delivered by Peter Kekemeke, judge of
the FCT high court, on July 8, 2026, describing the decision as erroneous in
law and against the weight of evidence.
The commission also asked the appellate court to dismiss
Agunloye’s suit in its entirety.
Kekemeke, in his judgement, had held that the EFCC’s
publication titled “EFCC arraigns Agunloye over $6bn fraud” was false and
defamatory, ruling that the former minister of power was not standing trial for
fraud.
The judge subsequently ordered the commission to pay
Agunloye N10 million in damages, publish an unreserved apology on its website
and in two national newspapers, retract the publication, and refrain from
making similar publications about him.
However, in its appeal, the EFCC argued that the trial court
failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it and wrongly concluded that
Agunloye had established a case of libel.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The commission contended that the lower court overlooked key
documentary evidence and the testimony of its witness, Umar Hussain Babangida,
an assistant commissioner of police (ACP), which, according to it, supported
the publication.
“The totality of the credible oral and documentary evidence
adduced before the lower court preponderated overwhelmingly in favour of the
Appellant,” the EFCC said.
The anti-graft agency added that had the trial judge
“properly evaluated the evidence on record, particularly Exhibits A, B, D and E
and the testimony of DW1 (ACP Umar Hussain Babangida), it would have dismissed
the Respondent’s claim in its entirety”.
The EFCC further argued that the trial judge failed to
consider all the legal ingredients required to establish libel, particularly
whether the publication was false and whether it was protected by lawful
justification or privilege.
According to the commission, Agunloye failed to prove those
essential elements.
The EFCC maintained that the publication substantially
reflected the facts surrounding Agunloye’s arraignment over the Mambilla
hydroelectric power project.
“The gist of the publication, namely that the Respondent was
arraigned by the Appellant in connection with fraud surrounding the $6 billion
Mambilla Project, was substantially true,” the commission argued.
It added that the court wrongly dismissed the publication as
“a mere sensational headline” and placed undue emphasis on what it described as
a semantic distinction between the value of the Mambilla project and the
offences contained in the charge.
The commission also argued that its publication was
protected by the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair
comment, insisting that informing Nigerians about corruption cases falls within
its statutory responsibilities.
It said the publication “was a fair, accurate and
contemporaneous report of the arraignment of the Respondent conducted in open
court”, adding that the judge erred by holding otherwise simply because the
EFCC is an investigative agency and not a news organisation.
The commission further challenged the finding that it acted
with malice, arguing that there was no evidence of spite, ill will or improper
motive.
It submitted that its investigating officer testified that
the publication was based on official investigation records and court
proceedings, while Agunloye failed to produce evidence capable of establishing
express malice.
On the issue of damages, the EFCC argued that Agunloye did
not prove that the publication diminished his reputation.
The commission noted that one of Agunloye’s witnesses
admitted he continued to hold the former minister in high regard after reading
the publication, while Agunloye himself remained the national secretary of the
Social Democratic Party (SDP).
It argued that any damage to his reputation stemmed from the
pending criminal proceedings rather than its report of those proceedings.
The commission also described the N10 million damages
awarded by the trial court as “arbitrary, excessive, punitive and unsupported
by any evidence”.
“The award is manifestly excessive and out of all proportion
to the circumstances of the case, such as to warrant appellate interference,”
it said.
The EFCC further faulted the orders directing it to
apologise, retract the publication and refrain from making future publications
concerning Agunloye, arguing that the injunction was vague and unduly
restricted its statutory duty to inform the public about its activities.
It also contended that compelling the commission to
apologise amounted to compelling speech despite what it described as
documentary evidence establishing the substantial truth of the publication.
The anti-graft agency equally argued that Agunloye’s civil
action ought not to have been entertained while his criminal trial over the
Mambilla project remains pending.
“The respondent’s civil action was premature, the criminal
charge against him being yet to be concluded and judgement delivered thereon,”
the commission said.
It added that the trial court’s findings effectively
prejudged issues that are still before another high court handling the criminal
case.
Among the reliefs sought, the EFCC urged the court of appeal
to allow the appeal; set aside the entire judgement, including the declaration
that the publication was defamatory, the orders for retraction and apology, the
perpetual injunction and the N10 million damages; and dismiss Agunloye’s suit
in its entirety.
1 month ago
