The Court of Appeal in Lagos has upheld the dismissal of media entrepreneur Mosunmola Abudu's libel case against child rights advocate Oluyemisi Wada. On July 2, 2026, a three-judge panel consisting of Justices Muslim Sule Hassan, Folasade Ayodeji Ojo and Polycarp Terna Kwahar unanimously rejected Abudu's appeal, affirming the Lagos State High Court's earlier decision to dismiss her claims. The lawsuit stemmed from an opinion article titled "Mute Voices," published in THISDAY newspaper in September 2009, which questioned the use of funds raised from a charity concert for street children. Abudu had sought N700 million in general damages, another N700 million in aggravated damages, a public retraction, an apology, and an injunction against further publication.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Muslim Hassan stated that while Wada admitted authoring the piece, such admission did not equate to libel. The court emphasized that proving defamation requires evidence that the publication damaged Abudu's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. "A person's reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him," the judgment read. The court noted Abudu claimed friends reached out after the article's publication but failed to call any of them as witnesses. It held that even one independent testimony could have satisfied the evidential burden.
The appellate court also affirmed Wada's defences of justification and fair comment, stating the issue involved public funds and fell within legitimate public interest. As a public figure who solicited donations, Abudu should expect scrutiny over fund management, the court ruled. It described the article as calling for transparency rather than seeking to harm reputation. Justice Polycarp Kwahar dismissed procedural objections but agreed the appeal lacked merit on substance.
Mo Abudu demanded N1.4 billion for alleged reputational damage yet could not produce a single witness who viewed her differently after the article. Her status as a public figure who raised funds from the public makes scrutiny inevitable, not punitive. The court's insistence on evidence over assumption protects free speech without shielding wrongdoing. Those who invite public trust must accept public questions.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion. All persons mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Full disclaimer →
