KILLING A FLY WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER: Why Prosecuting Dele Farotimi for Criminal Libel Is a Dangerous Overreach by the Federal , State and Chief Afe Babalola

The going prosecution of Dele Farotimi for allegedly defaming Chief Afe Babalola raises critical questions about the boundaries between civil and criminal libel and the implications for free speech in Nigeria. The arrest, detention, and multi-pronged charges against Farotimi—ranging from criminal defamation to cyber terrorism—are troubling on many levels. This article examines the legal distinctions between civil and criminal libel, the disproportionate nature of these charges, and the broader dangers to freedom of expression.

Civil vs. Criminal Libel: Understanding the Big Difference

At the core of this issue is the question of whether Farotimi’s statements constitute a private harm to Chief Afe Babalola’s reputation (civil libel) or a public crime warranting state prosecution (criminal libel).

What is Civil Libel? Civil libel addresses defamation as a private wrong where the victim seeks redress through monetary damages. If Dele Farotimi’s statements in his book were indeed false and defamatory, Chief Afe Babalola could pursue a civil suit to prove his case and recover damages. The goal here is to compensate for reputational harm, not to punish or criminalize speech.

What is Criminal Libel?

Criminal libel, on the other hand, treats defamation as a public offense that warrants punishment by the state. It applies in cases WHERE SPEECH INCITES VIOLENCE, ENDANGERS PUBLIC SAFETY, OR DISRUPTS SOCIETAL ORDER. The standard of proof is much higher—requiring the prosecution to establish intent, malice, and a direct threat to public order beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, Farotimi’s written statements in his book accusing Babalola of influencing Supreme Court judges hardly meet the criteria for criminal libel. The allegations, while serious, are centered on a dispute involving judicial integrity—a matter of public concern. Moreover, the content was published in a book, not disseminated in a way designed to incite public unrest or violence.

Does Farotimi’s Book Rise to Criminal Defamation?

Farotimi’s accusations stem from his role as a lawyer for one of the land owning families in a case involving 2 different Supreme Court proceedings (he was a lawyer in one and his clients were affected by the other), where he alleges impropriety in the court’s 2nd decision. His statements, while potentially defamatory, are clearly linked to his legal work and concern a matter of public interest: judicial transparency.

The Context Of any Alleged Defamation Matters

In defamation law, context is critical. Farotimi’s statements were not made as baseless attacks in a public outburst but as part of a broader narrative in his book, likely intended to provoke dialogue about corruption in the judiciary. Whether his claims are ultimately provable, proved or not, they do not rise to the level of criminal defamation, which requires a deliberate intent to incite harm or public disorder.

The Remedy For Content Of Dele’s Book Should Be Civil, Not Criminal

If Babalola believes his reputation has been unjustly harmed, the appropriate remedy would be a civil libel suit, where the burden of proof is significantly lower, and the outcome would likely involve monetary damages or a public apology—not imprisonment. Criminalizing such speech sets a dangerous precedent for using state power to suppress dissent and intimidate critics.

The Dangers of Allowing Criminal Prosecution for Libel

The prosecution of Farotimi on criminal defamation charges represents a dangerous overreach, especially when paired with the cyber terrorism charge in federal court. Here are three key dangers if such prosecutions are allowed to stand:

1. Chilling Effect on Free Speech

If Farotimi is convicted, it sends a message that powerful individuals can use state machinery to silence critics, even on issues of public concern. This creates a chilling effect where writers, activists, and journalists may avoid addressing corruption, abuse of power, or judicial impropriety for fear of arrest and imprisonment.

2. Weaponization of the Judiciary by the powerful against the weak

Chief Afe Babalola’s actions—having Farotimi arrested in Lagos and moved to Ekiti State, where there are no criminal defamation laws (though his people are trying ot argue that while it is true that ekiti has indeed removed criminal libel from its laws, they could still charge him under the criminal code which is federal but forgot that the supreme court already ruled on the same issue in a lagos based case) , then also charging him under cyber terrorism statutes in addition to already filing 2 different libel suits against him on the same set of facts—underscore how the judiciary can be weaponized by the powerful.

The denial of bail in the magistrate court and the exorbitant ₦50 million bail set by the federal court further illustrate the possible misuse of legal processes to punish dissent and we are all living witnesses… and some of us are allowing our genuine sympathy for chief Afe Babalola to cloud our larger sense of judgement on what is really going on here.

3. Undermining the Constitution

The Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Criminalizing defamation or categorizing it as cyber terrorism undermines these fundamental rights. The use of state power to settle personal grievances sets a precedent that endangers the constitutional rights of all Nigerians. THERE is enough remedy in civil courts for any overzealous use of the fundamental rightsa to free speech and taking it further and criminalizing it and turning it to cyber crimes and terrorism is a dangerous trend that we must stand against before its too late for all of us.

A Troubling Precedent: From Dele to Everyone

Today, it is Dele Farotimi. Tomorrow, it could be any Nigerian. This case is not just about Dele or Chief Afe Babalola—it is about the future of free speech in Nigeria. If a senior lawyer with decades of experience can face jail time for expressing his views in a book, what hope is there for ordinary citizens?

Allowing this prosecution to stand unchallenged opens the door for more powerful individuals to misuse state power to silence critics. It creates an environment where anyone who dares to speak truth to power risks arrest, imprisonment, and financial ruin.

A Call for Restraint and Reform

Chief Afe Babalola has every right to defend his reputation, but the manner in which this case has been handled reflects a troubling misuse of the criminal justice system. The Nigerian judiciary must recognize the distinction between civil and criminal libel and uphold the principles of free speech.

Prosecuting defamation as a criminal offense is not only an overreach but also a direct threat to Nigeria’s democratic values. The proper path forward is to challenge defamation through civil litigation, ensuring that both reputations and freedoms are protected.

This case must serve as a wake-up call for legal reform, ensuring that free speech is not undermined by those in power.

Conclusion

The case against Dele Farotimi is a dangerous overreach that threatens the foundational principles of free speech and the proper functioning of the judiciary. Criminal defamation laws should be applied sparingly, if at all, and only in cases where there is a clear threat to public safety or order—not as a tool to suppress criticism.

This case is about more than Dele Farotimi or Chief Afe Babalola—it’s about the right of every Nigerian to speak their truth without fear of imprisonment. If we fail to challenge this misuse of power, we risk silencing the voices that hold the powerful accountable and protect the public interest.

It’s time to demand a judiciary that upholds justice, not one that enforces silence.