Kwara State Court of Appeal: Saraki Criminal Defamation Appeal Dismissed

• The Court of Appeal in Ilorin dismissed a criminal defamation and cyberbullying case against former Senate President Bukola Saraki.
• The Kwara State Government initiated the case after Saraki questioned Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq’s educational qualifications.
• The court ruled that Saraki's statement was not capable of inciting violence or causing a breakdown of law and order.
• Evidence presented by the prosecution only showed witness dissatisfaction, not an actual breach of peace.
• The judgment clarified that criminal laws are not intended to shield individuals from uncomfortable or offensive statements, nor to suppress fundamental human rights.

This judgment from the Nigeria Court of Appeal reinforces the importance of freedom of expression, particularly in political speech, by clarifying that criminal defamation and cyberbullying charges require concrete evidence of incitement to violence or a genuine threat to public order.

The Court of Appeal in Ilorin has definitively dismissed a criminal defamation and cyberbullying case initiated by the Kwara State Government against former Senate President, Bukola Saraki. This significant ruling, delivered on Tuesday by Justice Ridwan Abdullahi, found that the prosecution's charge and presented evidence were insufficient to establish any criminal offense against Saraki. The appellate panel, which also included Justices Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole and Abdu Dogo, concluded that the allegations against the former Senate President could not be sustained.

The case stemmed from a statement made by Dr. Saraki on April 17, 2026, which was published across social media platforms and in a newspaper. In this statement, Saraki publicly questioned the educational qualifications of Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, suggesting that the Governor's level of education was impacting his judgment. The Kwara State Government subsequently brought charges, asserting that these remarks constituted criminal defamation and cyberbullying and were capable of inciting a breakdown of public peace. Saraki, however, consistently argued that his comments were a legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression and a direct response to pertinent public issues.

Central to the appellate court's decision was its finding that Saraki's statement, which critiqued Governor AbdulRazaq's educational background and decision-making, lacked the capacity to incite violence or disrupt law and order within Kwara State. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by the prosecution and determined that it failed to demonstrate any actual breach of peace. Instead, the testimony from witnesses merely conveyed their dissatisfaction with Saraki's comments, rather than indicating that the remarks had provoked violence or threatened public safety.

Justice Abdullahi underscored that criminal statutes, including the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the Kwara State Penal Code Law, and provisions related to cybercrime and cyberbullying, were not enacted to protect individuals from statements they might find offensive or uncomfortable. The court clarified that the fundamental purpose of criminal legislation is not to offer a mechanism for prosecuting individuals simply because their criticisms displease those in power. This interpretation sets a high bar for what constitutes a criminal offense in the context of public discourse.

The ruling further elaborated on the boundaries of prosecutorial authority, emphasizing that while Attorneys-General at both federal and state levels possess extensive powers to initiate criminal proceedings, these powers are not absolute. The court explicitly stated that such authority must be exercised strictly within legal confines and cannot be deployed in a manner that prejudices, oppresses, or infringes upon the fundamental human rights of citizens. This serves as a critical reminder that the power to prosecute is intended to uphold the law, not to undermine the very rights it is designed to protect.

This judgment from the Nigeria Court of Appeal reinforces the importance of freedom of expression, particularly in political speech, by clarifying that criminal defamation and cyberbullying charges require concrete evidence of incitement to violence or a genuine threat to public order. It signals that the Kwara State Government's attempt to use these laws against Bukola Saraki for critical political commentary did not meet the necessary legal threshold. The decision thus limits the scope for using criminal charges to suppress critical speech, ensuring that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and Kwara Penal Code are not misused for personal or political vendettas.

This ruling clarifies that in Nigeria, criminal defamation and cyberbullying charges, particularly in political contexts, require a high threshold of proof demonstrating actual incitement to violence or breach of peace, not just offense or discomfort. Lawyers should advise clients that prosecutorial powers are not to be used to suppress critical speech or for personal vendettas, reinforcing the importance of fundamental human rights even when statements are deemed offensive by public officials.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH Newspaper