The Supreme Court of Nigeria has delivered yet another important judicial statement on the controversial issue of criminal defamation, warning lower courts against hastily terminating criminal proceedings merely because a dispute appears civil in nature.
In a powerful judgment delivered by Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC in the case of AVIOMOH VS. C.O.P & ANOR, the apex court acknowledged the dangers associated with the criminalization of civil disputes, yet firmly maintained that courts cannot invalidate criminal proceedings simply because the law appears “archaic or unpalatable.”
The Court declared:
“A crime is what the legislature calls a crime no matter how archaic or unpalatable.”
That statement captures the heart of the decision; judicial restraint in the face of legislative choices.
Criminal Defamation Still Remains Law in Nigeria
Perhaps the most significant takeaway from the judgment is the Court’s clear affirmation that criminal defamation remains part of Nigerian law unless repealed by the legislature or declared unconstitutional in a proper factual setting.
The Court stressed that judges are not lawmakers. Even where a law appears outdated, oppressive, or susceptible to abuse, courts are bound to apply it so long as it remains valid law.
This position reflects the judiciary’s long-standing adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers.
The implication is profound: Nigerians cannot simply assume that because a dispute appears civil, criminal liability is automatically excluded.
Warning Against Abuse of Criminal Process
In one of the most notable portions of the judgment, the Court stated that persons who knowingly initiate unwarranted criminal proceedings where only civil remedies are appropriate should potentially face punitive damages.
This observation signals growing judicial discomfort with the misuse of police powers in commercial and interpersonal disputes.
A Delicate Balance Between Liberty and Law Enforcement
The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s attempt to strike a balance between two competing concerns:
1. Protecting citizens from oppressive criminal prosecutions; and
2. Preserving the right of complainants to invoke existing criminal laws.
The Court openly admitted that some defendants may suffer “untold damage” before charges are eventually quashed. Nevertheless, it maintained that every case must be assessed on its peculiar facts rather than through sweeping generalizations.
In essence, the Supreme Court is saying that the abuse of criminal law does not automatically invalidate criminal law itself.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is likely to influence:
1. Criminal defamation cases;
2. Police petitions arising from business disputes;
3. Cybercrime-related defamation prosecutions;
4. Preliminary objections seeking to quash criminal charges;
5. Judicial attitudes toward abuse of criminal process.
For lawyers, litigants, journalists, politicians, and businesspersons, the judgment serves as a reminder that criminal complaints cannot be casually dismissed simply because they overlap with civil claims.
Until the National Assembly reforms or repeals criminal defamation provisions, the courts appear unwilling to abolish them through judicial activism alone.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores a conservative but significant judicial philosophy: courts must interpret the law, not rewrite it.
While acknowledging the dangers posed by criminalizing essentially civil disputes, the Court nevertheless affirmed that existing criminal statutes remain enforceable until changed by the legislature.
For now, criminal defamation survives in Nigeria, but with a strong warning from the apex court that its enforcement must not become an instrument of oppression.