EX Minister Diezani Awarded N500 million In Defamation Suit Against Docu-Producer Chude Jideonwo

Chude Jideonwo, journalist and filmmaker, is currently facing legal action from former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, in connection with his four-part docuseries, Is It Your Money? The series, which is centred on allegations of significant corruption during Alison-Madueke's time in office, has sparked controversy, particularly as only the first two parts have been released publicly.

The former minister filed a defamation lawsuit in a Bayelsa State High Court. The presiding judge ruled in her favour and awarded N500 million in damages, even though Chude and several other defendants listed in the suit were not aware that there was a case since none of them received any court summons.

Beyond its apparent absurdity, the ongoing Diezani-inspired controversy underscores a concerning trend of legal threats being employed to stifle investigative journalism. This situation prompts critical inquiries into censorship and the exploitation of defamation claims to inhibit stories that are in the public's interest, significantly jeopardising press freedom and accountability.

Throughout the years, numerous reporters have encountered threats and lawsuits simply for posing the right questions. This lawsuit against Chude Jideonwo transcends individual concerns—it jeopardises the fundamental concept of press freedom.

Much like the new docuseries by Chude Jideonwo, investigative journalism is rooted in the field's core principles — to investigate, report, and inform the public. These endeavours are not exceptions but rather an extension of a journalist’s dedication to transparency, truth-telling, and accountability. For over twenty years, Chude Jideonwo has harnessed storytelling not only as a means of expression but also as a vehicle for civic engagement, bringing important discussions into the national arena.

Nonetheless, akin to the title, the former minister asserts that Nigerians should refrain from questioning the allocation of the country’s wealth under her leadership, as well as the clear corruption at the Ministry of Petroleum Resources. Ultimately, is this truly our money?

Responding to the news report that followed the court decision, Jideonwo took to his Instagram page, stating, “The series was produced with responsibility and great care. The team took deliberate steps to verify every fact, clearly distinguishing between what was alleged and what was confirmed. Nothing was rushed. Every individual referenced in the documentary, including Mrs. Alison-Madueke, was contacted, either directly, through their lawyers, or via official representatives.”

“The final part of the series was held back for six months to secure an exclusive interview with her in London, a conversation that required significant financial and logistical effort. That interview, now featured in Part 4, contains statements that may be self-incriminating, but instead of engaging publicly or refuting the claims, the response has been to intimidate, to silence, and now, to go to court.”This lawsuit threatens more than one journalist. It threatens the principle of free, independent journalism in Nigeria. If public figures can use the legal system to suppress uncomfortable truths, what space remains for honest reporting? And when the next powerful figure acts against the public good, will the press be too afraid to speak?

The implications extend well beyond this individual instance; they penetrate the very essence of our democracy. Journalism should not be viewed as a threat to national stability; rather, it serves as an essential pillar. Democracy is jeopardised when journalists are unable to document and scrutinise the actions of public officials. If storytellers are silenced, the truth becomes enfeebled. Independent journalism poses no threat; it constitutes a vital public service.

Chude Jideonwo has boldly asserted that he will not be intimidated. While Parts 1 and 2 of the documentary will be temporarily removed from his website, he promises to challenge this decision in court and ensure that all four parts of the series reach Nigerians.

However, the cumulative effect of these actions, evidenced by the recent bans on live political programmes and the prohibition of what the government termed “provocative” questions in Kano State, demonstrates a clear intent by supposed democratic leaders to intimidate the media and restrict critical reporting. This approach should be widely condemned as a threat to press freedom, open dialogue, and democratic governance.