A DAMAGING TWEET: THE INNOSON VEHICLE SCENARIO

Everyone is doing everything within their power to keep a good name and be held in high esteem in the eyes of other people. The idea is that a good name or brand sells easily. Building a good name can be pretty difficult and might take years of effort, but same can be destroyed with just one word or act.

The law knows the effect of a damaged name, as well as a damaged reputation, and has hence provided means to stop the act of tarnishing names without a good and justifiable cause. The law also provides good remedy for such injurious act. This is where the civil wrong of “Defamation” comes in.

Defamation can simply be said to mean the act of injuring another’s reputation by any slanderous communication, written (libel) or oral (slander). A statement is said to be defamatory in nature when it is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.

So, if a lady comes to the internet and says that a popular cleric man impregnated her and left her for death or something, a defamation of character can be said to have taken place. What if the allegation is true you ask? I know, just stay with me. Also, if a man enters a family meeting or announces in a village meeting that he has been having an extramarital affair with a particular married woman, a defamation of character can be said to have taken place. If someone spreads a juicy gist in an office that the promotion of a certain staff in the office as a reward for sex, then defamation can be said to have taken place. If a particular person comes out and says that a particular popular brand is useless, lacks merit and its product are not up to standard, defamation can also be said to have taken place. The list is endless.

The above statements are defamatory in nature because they affect the character and good image of the person, and most likely would lower the person’s reputation in the eyes of the general public. I mean, how would a cleric man with such accusation be seen in the eyes of the general public? Who would want to fraternize with a married woman who has been accused by her lover in the open village square? Or who would buy from a brand that has been reported to make substandard products?  Your guess is as good as mine.

When information and statements like these make it to the public, the aggrieved person (the defamed person) can seek remedy in court. Just to be clear, this is civil action, so no one would be arrested.

Now, for anyone to win a case of defamation in any court, he or she would have to prove the following:

1. That a publication was made (either in writing or words)
2. That the said publication is false.
3. That the said false publication was made to any person apart from the Plaintiff (the defamed person)
4. The publication referred to the Plaintiff (the defamed person), and
5. The publication was made by the Defendant (the defamer)

In other words, the people in the above examples I gave all have to prove that there was a publication, which can be in form of a letter, newspaper, internet post, video recording, audio recording, a speech at an event. That the said publication was false. In other words, if the publication turns out to be true, then there is no defamation. So, if the cleric man actually impregnated the lady, she or any of her relative calling him out would not be seen as defamation. Same goes for the other examples. The said false publication must be made to another person other than the defamed. This means that if a customer of a company reports to the customer care service of that company that their product is useless, and he/she regrets buying it, even if the statement turns out to be false, defamation cannot be said to have taken place. This is because the statement was not made to the hearing of the public, but the actual person affected. The publication must also refer to the Plaintiff (the defamed), the false comment must be about the defamed person, and it must be obvious that the comment/statement was about them. Lastly, the one that needs no explanation, the publication was made by the Defendant. You cannot sue someone for the wrong of another, the person who made the statement/publication is the one to be sued.

In the Innoson Vehicles case, a certain tweeter user with the name @Hyelasakda tweeted the following:

“Innoson vehicles are shit, I tell you that for free. The ones I supplied brand new to the office of the Head of Service & several other ministries didn’t last. The ones my father bought for his farm use have all packed up…..”

The said tweet is definitely a publication, and one that can be said to be aimed at attacking/destroying the reputation that Innoson Vehicles has built over the years. Just so you know, by law, a registered company is a person, that can sue and be sued. Like I said earlier, no one would want to buy from a company whose products have been said to not be up to standard.  The said statement was obviously not made to Innoson Vehicles directly, it was an open tweet directed to the entire world. The management of Innoson Vehicle had tweeted that its attention was drawn to the said tweet, that shows, no clear report was made to them by the said tweeter.  Lastly, the said tweet made a pure reference to Innoson Vehicles, not just anyone or any company. It probably would have been different if the handler had said “Made in Nigeria goods” only, that way no reference to any particular company would have been made out. The only thing left here for the company to prove would be that the said statement is false.

Is the statement false?

That is for @Hyelasakda to prove should the management of Innoson Vehicles decide to take legal actions. The truth is there are defences for the civil wrong of defamation, one of which is “Justification”. This means that the said statement/publication is true, and hence justified.  If @Hyelasakda proves that his statement is true, there would be no case of defamation. From my observation, there are three parts of the statement that need to be authenticated. The first is that he purchased brand new Innoson vehicles, the second is that every one of those vehicles have didn’t last” and the one his father purchased has likewise “packed up”

But from the gist spreading on the Nigeria twitter space, after Innoson Vehicles had acknowledged seeing the tweet and called him out, @Hyelasakda decided to delete his tweet and handle.

You should be careful what you put out there in the public domain. These things have legal consequences.