Tinubu VS AIT: Court Adjourns Case Till 30 June

  Tinubu VS AIT: Court Adjourns Case Till 30 June

 

An Ikeja High Court on Wednesday adjourned till 30 June a N150 billion libel suit filed by former Lagos State Governor, Chief Bola Tinubu, against Africa Independent Television (AIT).

Justice Iyabo Akinkugbe adjourned the suit to enable Tinubu’s counsel respond to the counter-claim filed by AIT.Tinubu had instituted the suit against Daar Communications Plc, owners of AIT, for airing of a documentary titled ‘Lion of Bourdillon’.

He had alleged that the documentary, which started airing on March 1,was libellous and aimed at tarnishing his image.

At the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, AIT’s counsel, Mr Jeffery Kadiri, informed the court that the defendant had filed a counter-claim which had been served on the claimant.

Responding, Tinubu’s counsel, Mr Ayodele Adedipe, said the process was served on the claimant only two days ago, adding that he needed time to respond.

Adedipe, therefore, asked the court for an adjournment and the judge aceded to his request.

In the counter-claim, AIT listed its Chairman emeritus, Chief Raymond Dokpesi and seven others as witnesses to testify against Tinubu. 

Others listed to testify ae Namure Edoimioya, Chief Medan Tenke, Ajibola Adewusi, Olumide Idowu, Chief Stanley Odidi, Engr. Nwabueze and Dr Stanley Bassey.

The broadcast outfit also denied the allegation of facts as contained in the claimant’s amended statement of claim. 

Dokpesi, in his statement on oath, averred that Tinubu’s claim was founded on a none existent ground because the said documentary was not titled ‘The Lion of Bourdillon’, but ‘Unmasking the Real Tinubu’. 

He also averred that the documentary, in his honest opinion, was not false and was not aired out of malice to the person of the claimant.

Dokpesi said AIT, as a member of the fourth estate of the realm, was empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution to at all times, hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people of Nigeria. 

He further averred that the content of the documentary were facts which had been in the public domain for over two decades.

According to him, these were published independently prior to the broadcast and had remained unchallenged to date.