Why Kashamu Discontinued Suit against Obasanjo
Tobi Soniyi examines the issues behind Senator Buruji Kashamu’s sudden decision to withdraw his libel suit against former President Olusegun Obasanjo
With a formal request from authorities in the United States for a Peoples Democratic Party chieftain and senator, Buruji Kashamu, to be extradited to the US, the lid was finally knocked off the libel suit he filed against former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Could this be the reason why Kashamu applied to discontinue the case?
All the ex-president needs to do to justify the claim that Kashamu is a fugitive will be to tender the request for extradition.
Discontinuance
In withdrawing the suit, Kashamu had said that parties were engaged in on-going settlement moves. But Obasanjo’s lawyer, Mahmud Magaji, denied knowledge of such moves.
Perhaps, another reason why the PDP chieftain decided to withdraw the suit was to avoid the unpleasant situation of being cross-examined. Already, two of his witnesses, Alhaji Haruna Rasheed (a businessman) and Mr. Omotayo Alade-Fawole (a lawyer), had given evidence. Kashamu was supposed to give evidence in support of his claim before he applied to discontinue the suit.
In their evidence, both men said they had ceased to associate with Kashamu, who was chairman of PDP’s Mobilisation and Organisation Committee in the South-west, since they read about the criminal allegation contained in the letter written by Obasanjo to President Goodluck Jonathan and was published in both the print and electronic media on December 12, 2013.
Rasheed, in his statement, said he broke the over 10 years friendship and business relationship with Kasahamu after the letter was published and was not retracted by the author. He stated that before the publication, he was the one carrying out “bulk printing services for the plaintiff’s several companies over the years”.
Part of Rasheed’s statement reads: “That my refusal to associate with him after the said publication is due to the fact that I have not seen or read any retraction by the defendant.
“That the plaintiff portrayed as criminal has tarnished my perception of him.
“That I know also that other friends, contemporaries and business partners such as myself who have held the plaintiff in high esteem would feel very disappointed just as I feel.”
Alade-Fawole said he stopped being Kasahmu’s protocol officer for the same reason. The witness said he used to carry out corporate legal services for Kashamu, who he claimed to have known about four years ago through a friend, who was Kashamu nephew.
Part of his statement reads: “That due to the nature of my closeness to the plaintiff as his protocol, he became an inspiration to me and a role model.
“That I read the publication in the Daily Sun newspaper publication of 12/12/2013 Vol. 10. 2775 at pages 47 and 49 and 12/12/2013 of Leadership newspaper at pages 3 to 8.
“That my understanding of the publication about the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a criminal.
“That since I read the aforesaid publication I have avoided serving him as a protocol or in any other personal capacity to avoid being seen with him.
“That my refusal to serve him after the said publication is due to the fact that I have not seen or read any retraction by the defendant.
“That the plaintiff portrayed as a criminal has blotted his character to me and brought to question the inspiration I ever found in
him.”
Cross-examination
However, during cross-examination by Obasanjo’s lawyer, Gboyega Oyewole, both men denied knowledge of the existence of any drug-related charges against Kahsamu in the US. Oyewole asked the witnesses if they were aware that Kashamu was arrested for drug-related crimes in 1998, detained for five years, and was still being wanted for the crime in the United States. He also asked if they were aware that the plaintiff had attempted to quash his indictment for the crimes in the US to no avail.
The witnesses denied being aware of such information.
These unpalatable questions would have been hauled at Kashamu had the trial continued and had he mounted the witness box to give evidence in support of his claim.
Banters
But before the trial was aborted, both Kashamu and Obasanjo threw banters at each other as shown in the papers they exchanged in court.
While Obasanjo described Kashamu as a known debtor and an individual lacking in reputation both at home and abroad, Kashamu referred to the former president as “a poverty stricken dropout from school and otherwise, a social misfit.”
In his statement of defence dated April 30, 2014, Obasanjo maintained his claims as contained in his letter to Jonathan and the former chairman of PDP, Bamanga Tukur. He said there was no basis for him to retract the words in the letter “because the statement/words are correct, true and justified”.
Obasanjo added, “The plaintiff has no iota of good reputation locally and internationally. Aside the plaintiff’s illicit drug business for which he was indicted and wanted in America, the plaintiff has penchant for taking loans from unsuspecting banks/ financial institutions with intention to permanently elude/avoid repayment or liquidation of such loans.
“Further to that, the plaintiff has been judicially adjudged/confirmed a debtor by a competent court of law in Cotonou, Republic of Benin. And the plaintiff presently occupies a choice position on the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria’s list of notorious bad debtors.
“The plaintiff is a person, who with his true name/identity supplied, will not be granted visa by German government or any country of the world having good relationship with the United States of America.”
He described the suit as “frivolous, speculative and gold digging” and urged the court to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction and on the grounds that it failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against him.
In his reply, Kashamu said the ex-president’s reliance on his much touted national and international acclaim to “malign more productive members of the society is uncalled for and could be symptomatic of megalomania.”
Kashamu stated that he was aware “that the defendant (Obasanjo), a poverty-stricken dropout from school and otherwise a social misfit, eventually found fame and fortune by joining the Armed Forces of Nigeria and benefitting disproportionately from opportunism of military adventure into governance in Nigeria, which led to an otherwise avoidable civil war and the corrupt and decadent socio-political system the nation struggles to be free of till today
“When the vaunted international acclaim of the defendant was tested in his contest with a barely known diplomat from Egypt for the position of Secretary General of the United Nations in 2008, the defendant was put in his place, as he failed to fly the flag of the nation successfully and lost the contest disgracefully.”
He stated the Obsanjo’s claim to be motivated by his sense of importance in writing the offensive letter to Jonathan and, allegedly, causing it to be published in the newspapers was untrue.
Kashamu further stated that the expresident was “actuated by malice and clear vendetta against the plaintiff, who worsted him in the political contest for the control of the PDP in Ogun State and the South-west zone of Nigeria.”
He stated that the former president’s averments in his statement of defence constituted “an aggravation of the libel”.
Restraining Order
While the case was pending, Kashamu moved the court to grant a restraining order against Obasanjo to stop him from proceeding with the scheduled public launch of his new book titled: “My watch,” on the grounds that the subject of the libel suit was contained in the book.
Justice Valentine Ashi granted the order, but Obasanjo proceeded to launch the book in Lagos following which Kashamu returned to the court with complaint to the effect that Obasanjo flouted the order of court by proceeding to launch the book.
Justice Ashi, in a ruling, held that Obasanjo was in contempt of court for flouting his orders restraining him from, among others, publishing the book. The judge gave Obasanjo 21 days (from the day of service of the court’s orders on him) to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for going ahead to publish the book in spite of the ex-parte interim order made by the court on December 5 last year and a pending libel suit involving him (Obasanjo).
However, the judge later lifted all orders against Obasanjo following counter arguments by Obasanjo’s lawyer.
Obasanjo had in his famous letter to the immediate past president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, ‘Before It Is Too Late,” alleged that Kashamu was a fugitive wanted in the US for drug related charges.
Kashamu found the reference to him as a fugitive offensive and took the option available to a civic man: he headed for the court. In the suit, which had since been struck out after Kashamu applied to withdraw it, he claimed the sum of N20 billion as damages among other reliefs.
He stated, in a supporting affidavit, that the defendant maliciously and recklessly published a letter titled, “Before it is too late,” which contained “words which he knew to be false.”
In his writ of summons, Kashamu stated that the criminal imputation made against him by Obasanjo in his letter had injured him (Kashamu). He prayed the court to award in his favour, and against the expresident, N20 billion for the damage he had suffered as a result of the allegation.
He also claimed against the Obasanjo as follows:
*A declaration that the words complained of and published by the plaintiff against the defendant in a letter titled: “Before it is too late,” addressed to Dr. Goodluck E. Jonathan and dated December 2, 2013, which inter-alia carried criminal imputation against the plaintiff and published in several newspapers on December 12 is defamatory of the person of the plaintiff.
*An order awarding the sum of N20 billion only to the plaintiff against the defendants as aggravated and exemplary damages against the defendant for libel falsely and maliciously published by the defendant against the plaintiff in the said letter.
*An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or privies from publishing or further publishing or cause to be published any defamatory words against the plaintiff to any person or persons; and the sum of N100 million as cost of this action.