The Court of Appeal in Lagos has unanimously dismissed media entrepreneur Mo Abudu's appeal against child rights advocate Oluyemisi Wada, affirming an earlier High Court ruling that threw out her libel claims. The decision was handed down on July 2, 2026, by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muslim Sule Hassan, Folasade Ayodeji Ojo, and Polycarp Terna Kwahar.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an opinion piece titled "Mute Voices" authored by Wada and published in THISDAY newspaper in September 2009. Abudu argued that the article insinuated that money raised from a charity concert organised to benefit street children had been misappropriated. She sought N700 million in general damages, an additional N700 million in aggravated damages, public retractions and apologies in national newspapers and online, and an injunction against further publication of the statements.
Why the Court Ruled Against Abudu
Justice Hassan, who delivered the lead judgment, acknowledged that Wada admitted authoring the piece but stressed that authorship alone does not prove libel. The court held that a claimant must go further and show, through credible evidence, that the publication reached third parties and actually damaged how those parties regarded her. "A person's reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him," the court stated.
Abudu had testified that friends and associates reached out to her after the article appeared, yet not one of them was brought to the stand during the trial. The court indicated that even a single independent witness speaking to how the publication affected their view of Abudu would have been enough to meet that threshold.
Public Interest and the Fair Comment Defence
Beyond the evidential gap, the appellate court upheld Wada's twin defences of justification and fair comment. Because the charity concert had solicited donations from the general public, the court reasoned that questions about how those funds were managed were squarely in the public interest. It noted that as a prominent public figure who actively sought donations, Abudu should reasonably have anticipated scrutiny over the administration of those funds. "It would not cost the appellant anything to provide explanation of her dealing with the funds generated from the public," the court observed, characterising the article as a call for transparency rather than an attack on Abudu's character.
The court also declined to read malice into Wada's decision to report her concerns to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, viewing it instead as conduct consistent with her advocacy work and her involvement in the fundraising effort.
Concurring Opinions and Final Ruling
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ojo drew a clear line between writing a document and legally publishing it, reiterating that defamation liability requires proof of communication to a third party. Justice Kwahar agreed, dismissing procedural objections before concluding that the appeal lacked merit on substance. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Lagos State High Court judgment delivered on May 3, 2019, and made no order as to costs.
Impact and Context
This ruling reinforces the burden of proof in defamation cases in Nigeria, emphasising that claimants must provide independent witnesses to demonstrate reputational harm. The case also highlights the importance of public interest and fair comment defences when matters involve public fundraising and scrutiny of charitable activities.
