₦airaland Forum

LEGALAide:
"Libel is a serious offence"?
Lol.
Under which law?
Senior Advocate of Nairaland (SAN).
Smh.
Libel is a civil wrong not an offence (crime).
Mtchewww.

Well said

LordAdam:
Where are LAWMA officials?

-Lord

Scrubbing your head I guess!

Well the last time I checked this woman have something related to international prostitution case in abroad,

I think I should find the link to the international newspaper carrying it.

xmich:
Well the last time I checked this woman have something related to international prostitution case in abroad,

I think I should find the link to the international newspaper carrying it.

Please do. We don't want people exploiting the Judiciary for personal gains.

LordAdam:
Yes it is a serious offence. But she should clear her name if this is false rather than try to suppress the facts.

Right now, the court's take will be such that the blogger should prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Ms. Onochie is guilty of those allegations, something that even the authorities with more manpower and resources would find difficult to do. Ms. Onochie, as far as this case is concerned, is not required to prove that these allegations are false.

Aisha Buhari watch for the inauguration was said to be worth millions. Today we know that was a false allegation because it was disputed in the public domain. Did Aisha take the proponent of that allegation to court?

Let Onochie prove in the public domain that those allegations are false. After doing so, she can go forward to charge the blogger to court.

Tinubu might have won a case of libel against Dokpesi and AIT, but we all know he is no saint.

There is no smoke without a fire.

-Lord

So....if i(hypothetically speaking..mind) state in public that you sell heroin to young people in your home-town, by your explanation....it is up to you to prove that you do not sell the heroin before you charge me to court for libel?

Strange. Anyway....a lawyer i am not.

But I know that you would take me to court to force me to prove my allegation....and to make sure i face the penalty if I have no proof...for comitting libel.

And assuming (hypothetically again) that you do sell heroin, the common law we follow protects you from self incrimination. So...you would still sue me for libel to get me to put up my proof(risky)...and win with satisfaction when I show I have no proof apart from hearsay(which is not good enough for any court).

The blogger made an allegation. And Ms Onochie has taken him to court to make sure he shows his proof....or apologises for lying. And if it comes out in court that Ms Onochie is involved in trafficking...then there would be a legal basis for a case against her.If not.....

Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel

catchfun:
http://www.punchng.com/buharis-aide-sues-us-based-blogger-over/

Isn't it funny? When Nigerians are dealing with normal nations they suddenly remember that there are ways to handle situations legally. But when it come to handle issues in Nigeria, common sense goes out the window. If it was a Nigerian blogger he'd be in jail right now forgetting that libel is a civil case.

LordAdam:
Is Ms. Lauretta Onochie, not a member of the scandalous Buhari Media Support Group (BMSG) that brazenly lied to Nigeria that Nigeria had been delisted from the Corruption Index put together by eminent anti-corruption agency Transparency International? A stance that I clearly put out for the irremediable shenanigan that it is in my featured thread--https://www.nairaland.com/2912264/debunking-lie-bmsg-nigeria-delisted.

Rather than pray the court to silence someone for criticism, she should make bold to dispute the claims. Only then should she take the defendant to court on counts of libel and slander.

-Lord

You are a ****, .............for a "Lord"!

Irrespective of any political leanings the Madam Onuchie belongs, she has been accused of something which she claims is untrue. That is the fact of the matter.

Now, it is trite in Law, that who ever "avers"/accuses....... must PROVE, or shoulder the burden of Proof.

How then is it her duty to be disputing something she already said was untrue?

Law is not "Beer-Parlour arguments" where every Tom and Harry just opens their beer-infested mouth and spew rubbish, as it comes, .......
......it has a process and procedure.

Since the matter is now in court, let us allow "learned people" to deliberate on it, rather than mouthing-off for the sake of saying something.

,

adipemcanis1:
So....if i(hypothetically speaking..mind) state in public that you sell heroin to young people in your home-town, by your explanation....it is up to you to prove that you do not sell the heroin before you charge me to court for libel?

Strange. Anyway....a lawyer i am not.

But I know that you would take me to court to force me to prove my allegation....and to make sure i face the penalty if I have no proof...for comitting libel.

The blogger made an allegation. And Ms Onochie has taken him to court to make sure he shows his proof....or apologises for lying. And if it comes out in court that Ms Onochie is involved in trafficking...then there would be a legal basis for a case against her.If not.....

Someone on this forum has called me a NIMASA employee, a looter under GEJ, a seaman, and an Igbo person, when I am neither of those things. I have offered to redeem my image in the public domain and have not charged the person to court.

I did not say she should not charge him to court. I am only saying that she should also prove that those allegations are false. It is easy to do. After that, she can charge the guy to court for being used as a agent of discord, libel and to assassinate the character of a law-abiding citizen.

If she can't disprove it, then discerning minds know she is only trying to use the courts to muscle the blogger. What she is doing is akin to how all those crime families do in the Americas. When you say something in the public domain against any top-ranking member, they either take you to court (knowing they do well to cover their tracks) or kill you. Who knows if she would have taken option B if the blogger was based in Nigeria.

-Lord

The blogger is based in the US. I would have found this story more interesting if she had taken legal action in the US and not in Abuja. The US courts, on civil matters, are less amenable to undue influence.

A President called his citizens criminals that deserve the terror they face around the world. Doesn`t Lauretta Onochie know that the Blogger is just reiterating what the President said? Or is she going to sue his President that speaks like a 7 year old?

adipemcanis1:
But that is not what is in front of the courts. What is in front of the courts is the allegation made by the blogger that Ms Onochie allegedly runs a human trafficking ring....ie is involved in ''white slavery''.

So....Mr Blogger better face the music. Either he has evidence of the above....or he admits guilt. Just because Ms Onochie might have told lies does not mean someone should tell lies about her.Libel is a serious offence.

But her name "Ms. Onochie" was not mentioned. Is she the "Anty" or "madam" doing the white slavery job? Smh, her claims won't Hold waters at all.

LordAdam:
Yes it is a serious offence. But she should clear her name if this is false rather than try to suppress the facts.

Right now, the court's take will be such that the blogger should prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Ms. Onochie is guilty of those allegations, something that even the authorities with more manpower and resources would find difficult to do. Ms. Onochie, as far as this case is concerned, is not required to prove that these allegations are false.

Aisha Buhari watch for the inauguration was said to be worth millions. Today we know that was a false allegation because it was disputed in the public domain. Did Aisha take the proponent of that allegation to court?

Let Onochie prove in the public domain that those allegations are false. After doing so, she can go forward to charge the blogger to court. In summary, she should prove these are false before going to the court.

Tinubu might have won a case of libel against Dokpesi and AIT, but we all know he is no saint.

There is no smoke without a fire.

-Lord

At times there are smokes with fire

Based on what I've read so far, the plaintiff is in the UK, the accused is the US, and the case is filed by Keyamo in Nigeria Why? Cos the names appear to be from same region in Nigeria?
Anyways, how can the plaintiff claim Madam Lolly are her first and last names?Even if her full names were used in the Facebook post how can she prove only her bear those names? Someone just wasted money hiring Keyamo on a case that holds no water. If it's that easy to prosecute bloggers, 90% of them should have been prosecuted during the presidential campaigns when every blogger lied to their teeth to promote the highest bidder.
I can feel her guilt conscience from Pluto where I'm posting this from.

Excuzeme:
You are a ****, .............for a "Lord"!

Irrespective of any political leanings the Madam Onuchie belongs, she has been accused of something which she claims is untrue. That is the fact of the matter.

Now, it is trite in Law, that who ever "avers"/accuses....... must PROVE, or shoulder the burden of Proof.

How then is it her duty to be disputing something she already said was untrue?

Law is not "Beer-Parlour arguments" where every Tom and Harry just opens their beer-infested mouth and spew rubbish, as it comes, .......
......it has a process and procedure.

Since the matter is now in court, let us allow "learned people" to deliberate on it, rather than mouthing-off for the sake of saying something.

Guy, it is understandable that you have a problem with my username because of your inferiority complex or because you are a blind hater. However, that is not the issue here.

No where did I say she should not charge him to court. I only said she should clear herself in the public domain by making a public rebuttal.

What the lawyers will deliberate is not if she is actually guilty of those allegations. They are only going to deliberate on if the blogger can prove beyond all reasonable doubts that she is guilty of those allegations.

Even if he can prove some but not all, the case will still be summarily dismissed.

A public rebuttal from her like the spokespersons of influential figures in the society is to repair their name. Just charging someone to court still poses fundamentally logical questions about her innocence.

-Lord

adipemcanis1:
Thank you for the correction. I guess we can agree that it is a legal issue...something for the courts to handle.

Again thank you.

you have just received sense!
may more apc members receive sense in Buhari name!
Amen!

Okay

Excuzeme:
You are a ****, .............for a "Lord"!

Irrespective of any political leanings the Madam Onuchie belongs, she has been accused of something which she claims is untrue. That is the fact of the matter.

Now, it is trite in Law, that who ever "avers"/accuses....... must PROVE, or shoulder the burden of Proof.

How then is it her duty to be disputing something she already said was untrue?

Law is not "Beer-Parlour arguments" where every Tom and Harry just opens their beer-infested mouth and spew rubbish, as it comes, .......
......it has a process and procedure.

Since the matter is now in court, let us allow "learned people" to deliberate on it, rather than mouthing-off for the sake of saying something.

...Hahaha, Ogbeni Excuzeme l like the way you break issues down, same way you put a final closure in the property section between 2 guys

may more apc internet winches receive sense that
"she who avers, proves".
madam lolly has to prove she is Ms. Onochie.
if madam candy is not onochie,
she also has to prove that the loss to her reputation is worth a dime.

asuustrike2009:
At times there are smokes with fire

At those times, it is up to the person to prove so.

She is not attempting to prove anything. She just wants to muscle the guy.

-Lord

LordAdam:
Yes it is a serious offence. But she should clear her name if this is false rather than try to suppress the facts.

Right now, the court's take will be such that the blogger should prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Ms. Onochie is guilty of those allegations, something that even the authorities with more manpower and resources would find difficult to do. Ms. Onochie, as far as this case is concerned, is not required to prove that these allegations are false.

Aisha Buhari watch for the inauguration was said to be worth millions. Today we know that was a false allegation because it was disputed in the public domain. Did Aisha take the proponent of that allegation to court?

Let Onochie prove in the public domain that those allegations are false. After doing so, she can go forward to charge the blogger to court. In summary, she should prove these are false before going to the court.

Tinubu might have won a case of libel against Dokpesi and AIT, but we all know he is no saint.

There is no smoke without a fire.

-Lord

So according to you, someone tells what you consider a lie against you with no proof; just a bunch of wild allegations and conjectures. Going by your logic, you who has been lied on is the one that should be struggling and toiling to prove that the allegations are lies rather than the "liar", having to prove how he came by his allegations?

What kind of logic is that?

LordAdam:
At those times, it is up to the person to prove so.

She is not attempting to prove anything. She just wants to muscle the guy.

-Lord

For example you see a boy and girl holding hands, one would conclude they are dating and even spread the news where in actual facts they might be .relations

Reptyle:
So according to you, someone tells what you consider a lie against you with no proof; just a bunch of wild allegations and conjectures. Going by your logic, you who has been lied on is the one that should be struggling and toiling to prove that the allegations are lies rather than the "liar", having to prove how he came by his allegations?

What kind of logic is that?

Oga, my logic is based on the premise that she may be hiding something if she does not want to make a public rebuttal.

Make a public rebuttal then charge the guy to court, what is so hard about that. If these allegations are as wild as you and her place them to be, then rebutting them should not be difficult.

If I type on some site that you are gay with a partner in PH. That is a wild allegation that you can easily rebuff by showing me your gf or wife and kids and such. After that, you can take me to court and I will appropriately lose the case.

I did not say she should not take the guy to court. I am only saying she should also bring a public rebuttal. It is easy to do if those allegations are truly false.

-Lord

asuustrike2009:
For example you see a boy and girl holding hands, one would conclude they are dating and even spread the news where in actual facts they might be .relations

That is wrong and you can easily prove that she is not your girlfriend by showing your own girlfriend or some other way. That public rebuttal is very important. If I just take the person who started the rumor to court without a rebuttal, it only shows I might be hiding something.

-Lord

I remember her, the tool that offered herself to be used by fulani to drive a wedge between SE Igbos and Igbos in delta on Facebook because of connection she has with Buhari.

LordAdam:
Oga, my logic is based on the premise that she may be hiding something if she does not want to make a public rebuttal.

Make a public rebuttal then charge the guy to court, what is so hard about that. If these allegations are as wild as you and her place them to be, then rebutting them should not be difficult.

If I type on some site that you are gay with a partner in PH. That is a wild allegation that you can easily rebuff by showing me your gf or wife and kids and such. After that, you can take me to court and I will appropriately lose the case.

I did not say she should not take the guy to court. I am only saying she should also bring a public rebuttal. It is easy to do if those allegations are truly false.

-Lord

Is her going to court not a rebuttal enough?

Like you rightly said, the court is not just going to ask the blogger to cease and desist or award damages against the defendant without first asking him to prove his allegations.

Surely if the blogger had a basis for going public with his allegations in the first place, it should not be so hard to furnish the court's with such details should it?

My point is, why should the burden of proof or otherwise be on the woman rather than on the one that went public with an allegation he might not be able to prove before a court of law?

Reptyle:
Is her going to court not a rebuttal enough?

Like you rightly said, the court is not just going to ask the blogger to cease and desist or award damages against the defendant without first asking him to prove his allegations.

Surely if the blogger had a basis for going public with his allegations in the first place, it should not be so hard to furnish the court's with such details should it?

My point is, why should the burden of proof or otherwise be on the woman rather than on the one that went public with an allegation he might not be able to prove before a court of law?

You are not understanding my point. I will make it clearer.

Her going to court is not enough.

It would be very difficult for the blogger to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubts or as you put it "furnish the court with such details should it". And you should know that even if he proves some, but does not prove everything, the court will still decide against him.

No where did I say that the woman should solely bear the burden of proof. I said she should make a public rebuttal, after which, she should charge the blogger to court. It is far easier for her to prove these allegations are false than for the blogger to prove that they are true.

-Lord

wow

Lauretta Onochie, the number one Igbo hater of Anioma extraction.

Not surprised she is an APC supporter, there is something Igbophobic about APC that often infects her supporters, even the Igbos amongst them are not spared of that affliction.

LordAdam:
You are not understanding my point. I will make it clearer.

Her going to court is not enough.

It would be very difficult for the blogger to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubts or as you put it "furnish the court with such details should it". And you should know that even if he proves some, but does not prove everything, the court will still decide against him.

No where did I say that the woman should solely bear the burden of proof. I said she should make a public rebuttal, after which, she should charge the blogger to court. It is far easier for her to prove these allegations are false than for the blogger to prove that they are true.

-Lord

I see the point you are trying to make...but I beg to differ sir.

It would not be easier for her to prove that the allegations are false...and in all honesty, you and I know a rebuttal would be futile in this situation.

This is Nigeria where any allegation against someone is taken as truth and the person is tried, convicted and sentenced in the media even before the "accused" gets a chance to be heard.

Case in point is this very thread we are on. Go back and read the comments from people that have already condemned the woman based on the OP.

I suspect very few of them even know the woman beyond the fact that she is a member of the APC and supported President Buhari 's campaign.

A rebuttal is in my opinion, only effective or useful where people are open and fair minded and willing to hear from both sides before reaching a conclusion.