By Kabs Kanu
Defamation cases are very complex. According to my studies in the law, Defamation Law can be complex and involves varying standards depending on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure, the nature of the statement, and other factors. This complexity can make it difficult for plaintiffs to navigate the legal process and prove their case.
My law books tell me that proving defamation involves navigating a complex legal landscape with a high burden of proof, while defendants have numerous defenses at their disposal. This combination of factors makes it challenging for plaintiffs to successfully pursue defamation claims, even when they have a legitimate grievance.
Also, do the courts in Sierra Leone have a legal territorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens living in America , especially with complex cases like defamation ?
How do you enforce any legal judgemen from a civil suit t against them outside Sierra Leone.?
Can some of the draconian laws in Sierra Leone be applied here ?
What about Kamarainba’s First Ammendment rights in America ? The First Ammendment Rights were designed to protect Freedom of Speech and in America defendants have very strong legal defences against defamation claims.
Statements of opinion are privileged under the law in America, especially where it involves political misconduct and graft.
Opinions and statements are subject to different interpretations in law.
Statements of opinion, especially if they are clearly labeled as such, are generally protected from defamation claims.
Public Figures and Actual Malice:
Public figures face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases, needing to show that the defendant acted with “actual malice” – meaning they knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. So, even if the law firm in Sierra Leone filed the same case here, the evidently burden is very high in America than in Sierra Leone where the courts are not fair or follow established legal principles and precedents..
My law books also tell me that :
The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with a certain level of fault (negligence, recklessness, or malice, depending on the plaintiff’s status). This can be difficult to demonstrate, especially if the defendant claims they believed the statement to be true or made it without malicious intent. If you make a statements and you honestly believed that it was true, it is a legal defence.
If there is an element of truth in the allegations, Kamarainba will not be held liable. In civil cases, the threshold is that the allegation made must be more likely than not to have happened . It is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as in Criminal Law. Are the people in Sierra Leone suing Kamaraiba sure that they are of such unimpeachable moral rectitude that it was actual malice to have accused them of being parties to the crime ?
Also, what if Kamarainba”s allegations are true ? There is a legal defence called TRUTH BY JUSTIFICATION. What if Kamarainba has secret sources providing him the information? It does not seem likely that Kamarainba is making up these stories.
Somebody making a statement against you that you do not like does not necessarily and legally mean it is defamatory. All depend on the law and the facts.
Sierra Leoneans do not reason or argue logically . They depend on cussing or bulldozing their way. What if it is what the plaintiffs want to do ?
I hope some lawyers in Sierra Leone are not trying to eat somebody ‘s money free .
