Re: Letter of Demand from Solicitors to Hon. Billy Osawaru;In Defence of Hon. Patrick Aisowieren: On Truth, Character, and Accountability in Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode

By OSIFO, Osa Washington
LL.B; B.L; LL.M, MPA; Ph.D (Comparative Economics & Development Studies); Ph.D (Environmental Law in view) Lawyer | Political Scientist | Public Administrator
Aspirant, House of Representatives
Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode Federal Constituency

“In law, truth is the ultimate defence. In morality, truth is the first duty. A society that punishes the one and abandons the other cannot endure.”
— OSIFO, Osa Washington

My attention has been drawn to a letter of demand issued by solicitors acting for Hon. Billy Osawaru, alleging that comments made during our party engagement in Igbanke Ward were defamatory.

I find it necessary to put the records straight because those comments were made by Hon. Patrick Aisowieren at my engagement with the Party. He spoke to distinguish between verifiable academic records and questionable claims.

Ordinarily, for self-protection — especially as one aspiring to hold public office — most people would prefer to be quiet and abandon anyone who got accosted while assisting him to actualise his aspiration.

I cannot sell anyone to buy my future. This statement is mine, and everyone who knows me knows I live by it.

For me to stick out my neck now, not minding the consequences, is character. It demonstrably supports my claim that public office must not be purchased with the betrayal of those who stand for truth. As a lawyer, political scientist, and public administrator, I understand that silence in the face of misrepresentation is complicity.

1. The Context
Hon. Aisowieren’s comment was not a personal attack. It was a comparative observation made before constituents who have a right to assess those seeking their mandate. He contrasted my academic qualifications — which are matters of public record — with the observed inconsistencies surrounding Hon. Billy Osawaru’s repeated claim to a Ph.D, when his sworn INEC Form EC9 for the 2023 election listed WAEC/SSCE as his highest qualification.

2. The Law on Defamation Is Settled
With profound respect, the demand letter misunderstands the law of defamation in Nigeria. For a defamation claim to succeed, the claimant must prove five elements: that the words are defamatory, refer to him, were published, are false, and that no defence avails the defendant. Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd v. Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.100) 678. Failure on any one element defeats the entire claim.

The most fundamental element is falsity. A true statement, however uncomfortable, is not defamatory. The law has long recognized justification — proof of truth — as an absolute defence. Guardian Newspapers Ltd v. Ajeh (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 574.

3. The Facts Are Public Record
During the 2023 electioneering period, Hon. Osawaru repeatedly presented himself to the electorate of Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode as a Ph.D holder. Yet, in his sworn INEC Form EC9 submitted pursuant to Section 29 of the Electoral Act 2022, he declared WAEC/SSCE as his highest academic qualification.

Hon. Aisowieren’s comments merely juxtaposed those two public positions: what was claimed on the campaign trail versus what was sworn to under oath before INEC. That is not an invention. It is a comparison of facts already in the public domain.

4. Political Speech and Public Accountability
The credentials of a person seeking or holding public office are matters of overriding public interest. Nigerian courts have consistently held that public officials must tolerate robust scrutiny and criticism of their public conduct and declarations.

When a citizen or fellow contestant questions discrepancies between campaign claims and official filings, that is not malice. That is civic accountability protected by law. The electorate has a right to know. Candidates have a duty to be truthful.

Representation is built on trust. Credentials matter in policy and oversight. When sworn declarations do not match campaign claims, the public has a right to interrogate it. That is political accountability, not defamation. Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode must reward verifiable competence, not disputed titles.

5. Hon. Aisowieren’s Defence
Legally: His statement is protected by justification and fair comment on a matter of public interest. The burden is on Hon. Osawaru to prove falsity, yet the INEC record speaks.
Politically: He performed the duty of a campaigner — to compare, contrast, and allow the electorate to choose.
Morally: He spoke in my defence and in defence of the electorate’s right to know. My defence of him now is the same principle in return — I cannot sell anyone to buy my future.

6. Our Position on the Demand

1. Truth: The statements made by Hon. Aisowieren are substantially true and borne out by INEC records accessible to the public.
2. Justification: Truth is a complete defence to defamation. Once established, liability does not arise.
3. Public Interest: Comment on the qualifications of a House of Representatives member is fair comment on a matter of public interest.
4. Burden of Proof: He who asserts must prove. The burden lies on Hon. Osawaru to prove the statements are false.
5. Character: I will not abandon a man for speaking public truth at my engagement with the Party. I will not be intimidated into silence for defending verifiable facts.

7. Conclusion: Law and Morality Must Align
Defamation law protects reputation from falsehood. It does not insulate public officials from legitimate questions about their own sworn declarations.

In law, Hon. Patrick Aisowieren incurs no liability because truth is an absolute defence to defamation, and the facts here are matters of public record.

In morality, our constituency cannot be asked to choose between integrity and representation. To mislead the electorate on academic qualifications violates the moral contract between leader and people. To question that misrepresentation defends that contract.

The law does not punish citizens for stating the truth. Morality does not reward leaders for concealing it. And character does not permit me to abandon a man for speaking public truth under any circumstances.

I stand with Hon. Patrick Aisowieren. His statement was true, lawful, and morally necessary.

If Hon. Osawaru disputes the facts, let him produce the Ph.D certificate he claimed during the electioneering campaign of 2023, reconcile it with his INEC filing, and let the public judge.

We will continue to engage the public on truth, on records, and on respect for the intelligence and conscience of our people.

Osifo, Osa Washington
LL.B; B.L; LL.M, MPA; Ph.D (Comparative Economics & Development Studies); Ph.D (Environmental Law in view)
Aspirant, House of Representatives
Orhionmwon/Uhunmwode Federal Constituency, writes from Ehor, Benin City.