Defamatory documentary: Olanipekun, Abayomi lead Tinubu’s legal team against AIT

The legal battle by former Lagos State governor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, to defend his integrity against allegations aired in a documentary by Africa Independent Television (AIT), started on Friday before an Ikeja High Court, Lagos.
Tinubu’s legal team was led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN). Foremost human rights activist, Dr. Tunji Abayomi, is also part of the legal team.
An exparte motion was filed before the court in the case of defamatory and libelous documentary aired on AIT.
The exparte motion sought an order of interim injunction “restraining the respondent, AIT, whether by itself, agents, privies and or other persons from producing or continuing to broadcast, airing, or continuing to reproduce any defamatory documentary against the applicant which AIT started to broadcast on Sunday 1st of March, 2015 and has been repeating on a daily basis since then, pending the airing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction dated March 5, 2015 filed in this suit”.
The motion further noted as a fact that damages would not adequately compensate applicant/claimant if this ex-parte order is not granted. It prayed that “the res of this suit may be extinguished if the ex-parte order is not granted. That there is real, imminent and urgent threat and danger of continuing to decimate the person and integrity of the applicant by the respondent by continuing to air the offensive broadcast if the ex-parte motion is not granted. That unless this application is granted, the defendant will not relent or suspend the broadcast of the said libelous documentary and that it is in the interest of justice to grant the application.
“The legal effect of the filing and notification of the pendency of a law suit under the legal doctrine of lis pendens is that all parties should exercise extreme caution, particularly restraint in continuing with the act complained of. This is the minimal requirement of any law abiding citizen.
“This duty also extends to other members of the society who are expected to refrain from aggravating the damage complained of or in any way contributing to the quantum of damage. It takes on a more compelling dimension in this instance where the claimant has applied for injunctive restraining orders against the material complained against.
The contrary can hardly be argued against the fact that affront to the judicial institution attracts criminal implications”.