The British Broadcasting Corporation is well-known and doesn’t require any introduction; it has gained a reputation for flawless journalism worldwide throughout time. To Nigerians, at least, T.B. Joshua is a man who need no introduction. He had a sizable global following and was well-known as a prophet who worked miracles in his Lagos church before he passed away.
When the BBC Africa team revealed that it would be releasing a documentary about the late prophet’s personality, most Nigerians assumed they knew what it would be about. This is because, even before his death in 2021, there were allegations of sexual assaults, deceptions, and false/staged miracles against him.
This article is not intended to validate or refute the veracity of the people’ stories in the documentary, as the author is in no position to do so. However, after watching one of the parts of the documentary, the writer believes that there are legal concerns to be addressed, which Nigerians should learn from.
DEFAMATION (A CASE OF SLANDER)
Everyone wants a good name, and any attempt to ruin it would be fiercely rejected. In our country, people have been arrested for “negatively commenting” on other people’s character, reputation, and even company products. This is how far people will go to defend their public image. The law provides aid to anyone who believes that someone has harmed their reputation. Such a person has the legal right to sue the person for defamation. Defamation can simply be defined as the act of harming another person’s reputation through any slanderous message. The law also makes the “publication of defamatory matters” illegal. According to Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, the criminal faces a one-year prison sentence, and Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act 2015, states that the perpetrator may face a fine of up to N7,000,000 (Seven Million Naira), or imprisonment for up to three years, or both. So, in addition to filing a civil complaint to seek damages, a defamed individual can file a police report and have the perpetrator charged in court.
It is arguable that the BBC documentary on T.B. Joshua is defamatory in nature, and as such, legal action may be warranted. This is where the issue is. A defamation lawsuit is personal under the law. That is, the only party who can file a defamation lawsuit in court is the one who was supposedly “defamed.”
This raises the question: Should it be legal to disparage the deceased without facing repercussions? Does the law say that surviving family members have no right to preserve their loved one’s legacy? Both of our guesses are valid.
For the time being, though, the law considers defamatory acts to be personal in character.
WITCHCRAFT/DIABOLIC POWERS
During the documentary, it was clear that only the Africans “disciples” claimed that the late prophet used satanic powers on his followers. Disciples such as Bisola, Akewi, and Jessica described how he would go to the “prayer mountain”, enter a hut which had pictures of his disciples on the floor. The prophet would be dressed in a plain red garment, move in an anti-clockwise direction while wielding a sword. The objective was most likely to convince the viewers that these disciples were under spiritual bondage and the sway of a mysterious power, thus they did not act freely. This must have appeared normal to Nigerian viewers, who are accustomed to the usage of witchcraft/dark forces.
What people should understand is that the law does not acknowledge “diabolical/mystic powers”. It is not admissible as evidence before a court of law. Everyone is responsible for their conduct. No one can claim that he/she did what he/she did because of demonic forces or witchcraft manipulation. This is something the Nigerians who granted interviews did not realize.
ACCOMPLICE TO RAPE.
When Bisola talked in episode 2 of the documentary, it was unfortunate that she was unaware that she was making what we call a “confessional statement” in law. According to her version, as a “disciple” of the late prophet, she was assigned the responsibility of bringing underage females to the synagogue for the prophet. In her words, “He was a sexual predator and a ritualist. T.B Joshua urged me to recruit virgins for him and bring young girls into the disciple flock. This individual would enter his bedroom at midnight to disvirgin them.” She understood what he was doing to them. This simply means that she was not only a victim at that time, but also an accomplice to the crime of rape, which carries a 20-year prison sentence. The statement is implicative. Her conduct was criminal.
ABORTION CLINIC
Abortion remains a criminal act in Nigeria, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. No medical center is permitted to perform abortion unless it is necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life. If the documentary claims that there was an “abortion clinic” inside the Synagogue that was kept from the public eye, the “Incorporated Trustees of the Church” must step forward. This is because, unlike defamation of the late prophet’s character which is personal to him, this is a criminal allegation against the church. It alleges that the criminal act was carried out by the church’s supposed “medical team”. The church would have to refute this and take legal action against those who made the allegations. The Nigerian police should also investigate this.
PRIVACY
The BBC Africa team obscured the faces of persons who did not consent to video. This is because they were respecting the privacy of those persons. Most people, particularly content providers, are unaware that filming (recording) people without their knowledge and publishing the results is illegal, especially when the individual is in an uncomfortable circumstance. Apparently, the individuals who were undergoing delivery were in an unpleasant circumstance, and it would have been a violation of their privacy to broadcast it without their approval. This should serve as a warning to content makers, skit makers, investigative journalists, and others to get a persons’ authorization before publishing recording of them. You just might be saving yourself from a legal action.
Hmmmmmmm. Thanks for this piece sis.
This is enlightening and deep!
This is beautiful.. I really learnt a lot.
Insightful!
Excellent work, Priscilla. You have meticulously raised the salient legal issues inherent in this matter. Reserving my personal opinions or biases, I have the following things to say in response to the legal issues raised.
If the courts would go beyond the literal interpretation of only the person defamed having the right to institute a defamation suit— definition of “the person” should be made to include his successors, beneficiaries, estate, etc especially when the defamed is deceased.
Therefore, the golden rule of interpretation ought to apply here; the intent of the law maker is to preserve and restore the injury caused to the defamed person’s reputation as a result of such defamatory statements, whether the defamed is dead or alive). There is no gain saying that these statements must have caused a great damage to Late TB Joshua’s estate.
Also, the mischief rule of interpretation would very much be applicable in helping the family of the deceased find justice as persons making these statements if well investigated, would definitely have gains to benefit from this mischief. If not, why were these not raised during the lifetime of the deceased? Of what benefit are these revelations, now that the defamed is late? I definitely smell some rat 🐀 in the cupboard.
I verily believe that this case could be a potential ‘stare decisis’ situation i.e. leading to the creation of a new precedent of judge made rule.
If I’m recruited as the lawyer in this matter, establishing the 3 elements of defamation would be quite easy. On the justification element, the rule of equity would be the go-to defence.
I rest my case here for now.