UK Court Fines Hundeyin £95,000 for Libel…Says He Stands By His Story

Acclaimed investigative Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin, who was fined £95,000 (ninety-five thousand pounds sterling) by a court in the United Kingdom for libel and defamation of character of a filmmaker, with the British Broadcasting Corporation, has declared that he stands by his story.

The story in question was published on November 6, 2023, and titled: Journalism Career Graveyard”. The documentary filmmaker Charlie Northcott took David Hundeyin to court for libel and has now been awarded £95,000 in damages.

The award-winning journalist and filmmaker with the BBC alleged that starting in 2022, and continuing, he has been the victim of a serious libel at David Hundeyin’s hands. He alleged that the article contained several wholly untrue allegations that he had used his position as the director of Documentary films to obtain sexual favours from a woman involved in the production.

After the publication of the article, David Hundeyin allegedly then embarked on a public campaign intended to maximise the harm and distress it caused Charlie Northcort who in the suit, alleged that his career had been seriously impacted. Despite saying he would defend this case, David Hundeyin failed to do so in the British Court. He said the UK was not the appropriate jurisdiction for the matter.

Nevertheless, the court went ahead to award C £95,000 damages, including aggravated damages. This in the opinion of the Court is an appropriate sum to compensate Charlie Northcort for the damage to his reputation caused by Hundeyin and to vindicate his good name; and it takes appropriate account of the distress, hurt, and humiliation that D’s false and defamatory publication has caused him, as well as D’s aggravating conduct.

The court also makes an order under Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring Hundeyin to publish a summary of the judgment. It also makes an order under Section 13, requiring the website operators concerned to remove the relevant part of the offending article.

The case details are here: rg/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2704.html.

David Hundeyin’s Response

David Hundeyin refused to defend the case while it lasted in Court on jurisdictional grounds. He alleged that the appropriate place to institute the case is in Nigeria. In his lengthy response on his X handle, Hundeyin wrote among others:

“I reiterate yet again that I stand by EVERYTHING I have ever published, and if the oyibo opportunist and his Nigerian proxies cannot accept that someone has the ability to stand on principle without his knees shaking, then that’s tough for them. I didn’t come this far in my career by being weak or brittle, and I have contended with far more powerful, resourced, consequential and intelligent enemies than a whiny opportunist who cannot stomach the idea of having his bullshit called out by a member of a group that he has been raised to think of as genetically inferior to his own.

“I come from a part of the world that was famously known as the “White Man’s Graveyard.” I am a descendant of the West African warriors and malaria parasites that gave it that name. I do not fear white people, and I *ESPECIALLY* do not like white people who try to bully me for doing my legitimate work.

Defamation Law in the UK

In the United Kingdom, the primary legal framework for defamation, which includes online defamation, is the Defamation Act 2013. Here are the key points related to online defamation:

1. Serious Harm Requirement: According to Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause “serious harm” to the reputation of the claimant. For bodies trading for profit, this harm must also lead to or be likely to lead to serious financial loss.

2. Defamation Types: – Libel: This concerns defamatory statements in written or permanent forms, which now includes online publications.

– Slander: Traditionally involves spoken words or transient forms, but in online contexts, even spoken content like podcasts or videos can be considered libel if they’re posted online.

3. Publication: For a statement to be actionable, it must be published, meaning communicated to at least one other person than the person defamed. Online, this often happens when content is posted on websites, social media platforms, blogs, etc.

Jurisdiction: The law aims to prevent ‘libel tourism’ by requiring that England and Wales must be the most appropriate place to bring an action against someone not domiciled in the UK, EU, or countries bound by the Lugano Convention.