HOW DO THE COURTS CURE DEFAMATION AND CYBERSTALKING?

Basil Okoh

MaTaZ ArIsInG
Dallas, Texas

Everyone expected a groundbreaking case of defamation and cyberstalking against Fejiro but what we have now in court is a whimper, a sneeze not worth the attention of a passer by. Having read the charges of defamation and cyberstalking, we believe these charges are just grandstanding and knee jerking, intended to remove the young man from circulation. It is obvious that it was a case filed as an afterthought after his arrest, to teach the boy a lesson, intimidate and hold him down to stop inflicting further annoyance until after the elections of 2027.

Defamation and cyberstalking must be made of sterner stuff than what is being paraded as serious cases in this case. The cases can be whiplashed by any rookie lawyer.

Both the ones pressing charges and the ones filing it in court appear to be caught in a maze of misunderstandings and contradiction in terms. There is so much mix-up of terms and usages. It all shows that the wider implication and ramification of the cases was not thought through.

Cyberstalking is a borrowed term from American usages but as is usual in these parts, the term was borrowed without an understanding of its applications. Criticism is not cyberstalking. Published News reports cannot also be cyberstalking. More importantly, one single report of a person’s activity cannot be taken as stalking. Stalking means a long time of following a person menacingly with the intention of doing harm. Stalking is physical and territorial. Cyberstalking may not be physical but it must be territorial with the intention to cause harm.

Direct communication with the victim is an intrinsic evidence to prove stalking. If there’s no unwanted communication to the supposed victim, contact or actions or threat of being followed, then it cannot be stalking.

To stalk someone means to persistently follow, watch, or harass a person in a way that threatens their safety and cause them fear for their lives or cause them emotional distress. Cyberstalking involves unwanted contact through calls, texts, e-mails, or social media, as well as appearing at their home, work, or other frequented places.

How does a journalist stalk a person without ever contacting him directly through known means of communication as described by the law? There must be interpersonal communication from the stalker to his victim to establish Cyberstalking. Since we are dealing with persons far removed from personal contact or communication, it will be difficult to establish stalking, cyber or not. We are talking of persons under protection and under official guard everywhere they go by armed policemen and other armed guards of the state. We wait to see how this case can be proven in court.

The law on Cyberstalking was never intended to extinguish criticism of public officers’ performance in government or abolish exposure of the many crimes associated with the performance of public office bedeviling the Nigerian nation. Therefore to say someone is not doing his job or not doing it well cannot be stalking. To say that a public officer is wrong about actions taken cannot also be labeled as stalking. Anyone who seeks and takes public office must be ready to render account to the public.

A man who has integrity will not feel defamed by someone who says he travelled to Brazil even if he did not. And then every teacher in the state has a nickname given by their students and every public person has a cognomen to spite him given by those who don’t like him.

As Nigerians we live with “yabis” as part of culture, we don’t call it defamation or Cyberstalking. Goodluck Jonathan has been called “clueless” for many years but did not take his traducers to court. Muhammad Buhari was called ”Baba Go Slow” for many years but no one was locked up. He even laughed about it in public interview. Obasanjo is still called “Sirajo” in the north. We all know who is paraded as “balablu’ in this country today. He has not gone to court to sue for defamation.

What is on display here is the case of two insecure public officials with low self-esteem and very thin skin, unable to manage their narcissistic predilections to fit the big offices they occupy.

The public must know that cases of defamation are quite hard to prove against a sensible journalist. Moreover, all public office holders and public persons are stalked by reporters and paparazzi all over the world as a matter of their job demands. Getting a scoop or meeting the deadline is the little god that rules the world of journalism.

Putting up with stalking goes with the territory of holding public office. It is why Presidents, senators, governors travel with reporters and even historians everywhere they go officially so that they ensure fair and knowledgeable report of their activities. Journalism and democracy forbid secrecy. Government has a right to its secrets. But it is the bounden duty of the journalist to find those secrets and publish it.

Only office holders who operate secretly in Nigeria refuse to travel with independent reporters as part of their travel team and then turn round to accuse journalists of stalking. Whatever a reporter does to gain legal access and get information is fair game. Journalists are usually charged more for theft of government documents than for defamation. News is sacred and is worth every effort to get it. A public office holder who is not stalked cannot be newsworthy and is not worthy of the job he holds. Reporting the facts and the truth essentially and always defeats the charge of defamation.

We are just observing two men display a pitiable sense of unworthiness of the high offices they occupy as we watch them cascade down from Olympian heights down the slopes to infamy and public damnation. Politicians and publicans who feel worthy of their positions do not get so prickly over matters as trivial as name calling. Neither do they make enemies of journalists whose jobs are to inform the public. The best attitude is to show the journalist as uninformed and prejudiced, until there is a provable case of defamation. A journalist who has lost public trust and belief is no longer worth the pen he writes with.

The sense of insecurity by these two men speak of their small mindedness and tell also of their suffering from the mental condition we call “Avoidant Personality Disorder” (AVPD): A mental health sickness characterized by a chronic fear of rejection and intense sensitivity to criticism, leading the sufferer to keep away from social situations.

@basilokoh.

1SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER NOW

Support MATAZ ARISING’ journalism of integrity and credibility.

Good journalism ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

We ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

0.00USD

Amount
0.00

TEXT AD: To advertise here – Email ad@matazarising.com

LATEST POSTS