The Court of Appeal in Lagos has affirmed the dismissal of a high-profile libel action instituted by media entrepreneur and philanthropist Mosunmola Abudu against child rights advocate Oluyemisi Wada, delivering a judgment that legal experts say could further shape the contours of defamation law and public interest commentary in Nigeria.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muslim Sule Hassan, Folasade Ayodeji Ojo and Polycarp Terna Kwahar dismissed Abudu’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Lagos State High Court, which had earlier thrown out her claims for damages arising from an article published in THISDAY newspaper in September 2009.
Abudu had sued Wada over an opinion article titled “Mute Voices,” alleging that it falsely suggested that proceeds from a charity concert organised for the benefit of street children were diverted from their intended purpose. She sought N700 million as general damages, another N700 million as aggravated damages, a public retraction and apology in national newspapers and on the internet, as well as an order restraining further publication of the statements.
However, the appellate court found no basis to disturb the judgment of the lower court.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Hassan held that while Wada admitted authoring the publication, such admission did not automatically establish the tort of libel. According to the court, the law requires more than proof that a publication exists; a claimant must also establish, through credible evidence, that the publication was communicated to third parties in a manner that lowered the claimant’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the trial judge ought to have relied solely on the ordinary meaning of the published words to determine whether they were defamatory. Instead, it held that independent evidence from persons who had read the publication and whose perception of the claimant had been adversely affected remained a critical element of proof.
“A person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him,” the court observed, adding that publication alone, even in a widely circulated newspaper, is insufficient without evidence demonstrating its effect on third parties.
The justices noted that although Abudu testified that friends and associates contacted her after the publication, none of those individuals was called to testify during the trial. The court held that the testimony of at least one independent witness would have been sufficient to establish how the publication affected the claimant’s reputation.
Beyond the evidential burden, the Court of Appeal also upheld Wada’s reliance on the twin defences of justification and fair comment.
The justices reasoned that the controversy centred on funds raised from members of the public for charitable purposes, making the issue one of undeniable public interest. They held that citizens, particularly donors, are entitled to ask questions about the utilisation of publicly donated funds and to express opinions on matters concerning transparency and accountability.
The court further observed that Abudu, as a prominent public figure who solicited donations from the public, should reasonably expect public scrutiny regarding the administration of those funds.
“It would not cost the appellant anything to provide explanation of her dealing with the funds generated from the public,” the court stated, describing the publication as one that challenged greater transparency rather than one intended to destroy reputation.
Rejecting allegations of malice, the appellate court also held that Wada’s decision to report her concerns to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) could not, without more, be interpreted as evidence of personal hostility or ill will. Rather, the court viewed the action as consistent with her role as a child rights advocate and a contributor to the fundraising initiative.
Justice Folasade Ayodeji Ojo, in a concurring opinion, underscored the distinction between authorship and publication in defamation law, stressing that liability cannot arise merely because a person authored a document. She maintained that publication, in law, requires proof that the allegedly defamatory material was communicated to a third party, adding that the appellant failed to produce credible evidence to satisfy that requirement.
Justice Polycarp Kwahar, who also agreed with the lead judgment, dismissed procedural objections challenging portions of the appeal but concluded that the substantive appeal lacked merit.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces longstanding principles governing defamation actions in Nigeria while offering fresh judicial guidance on disputes involving public accountability. The decision underscores that courts will continue to demand strict proof of reputational injury rather than presume damage merely because allegedly offensive statements were published.
The ruling is also expected to resonate beyond media law by reaffirming judicial protection for fair comment on matters of public interest, particularly where charitable organisations, public fundraising and the stewardship of donated resources are involved. It signals that while reputation remains a legally protected right, the courts will equally safeguard responsible public scrutiny and legitimate criticism where transparency and accountability are at stake.
Having resolved all three issues against the appellant, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State High Court delivered on May 3, 2019, and made no order as to costs.
