03/02/2020 Muwema -v- Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] IEHC 519 (23 August 2016) (f) An article in the “Uganda Drone” entitled “Ugandan Lawyer Fred Muwema in trouble over illicit dealings with security operatives” dated 24th March 2016 wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff was paid 900 Uganda shillings to cooperate in the hunt of Mr. TVO, an online activist. (g) An article entitled “I wasn’t bought off to drop from Mbabazi case - Muwema” where the plaintiff gives an interview and refutes the allegations against him, including allegations of bribery and states that because he is involved in high profile cases, “attacks” on him are inevitable. 13. On this basis, Mr. Gilbert avers that the plaintiff has, at the very least, been the subject of considerable controversy in Uganda. He suggests that the plaintiff’s averment that his law firm enjoys an especially high standing in Uganda is false, especially in light of the fact that the Ugandan Supreme Court has condemned the plaintiff’s misconduct and ordered his arrest. Mr. Gilbert avers that the plaintiff’s description of his professional standing is misleading and also points to the fact that the plaintiff had recently separated from the partners in his law firm, and that this fact was not deposed to by the plaintiff when grounding his application. 14. On the basis of the foregoing, Mr. Gilbert argues, that the Reported Content does not cause the plaintiff reputational damage for two reasons. Firstly, content concerning the plaintiff’s reputation is not limited to the defendant’s site, but is freely available elsewhere on the internet. Secondly, content concerning the plaintiff’s reputation has circulated the internet for a period of two years, while the Reported Content has only been available on the defendant’s site for a period of three months. Mr. Gilbert avers that if the plaintiff suffered any reputational damage, that damage must have existed long before the Reported Content appeared on Facebook. 15. Therefore, Mr. Gilbert argues, that there would be no practical utility in removing the Reported Content when a number of other websites have content containing the same allegations for quite some time. In essence, “the genie has been let out of the bottle”. Mr. Gilbert avers that the Reported Content is typical of content on the defendant’s site involving public and especially political figures. He says the Reported Content is merely the opinion of an individual and is not for example news from a reputable news outlet. 16. Additionally, Mr.Gilbert avers that, in his affidavit grounding this application, that the plaintiff has failed to place all of the relevant material before the Court, by failing to mention matters already in the public domain that have a bearing upon his reputation. 17. Mr Gilbert avers that in reality, the plaintiff’s complaint is against the person who created or published the Reported Content and not against the defendant and on that basis, the defendant does not oppose a limited “Norwich Pharmacal” order in respect of TVO, but the defendant is not willing to consent to a similar order in respect of the identity of the potentially thousands of individual posters or the TVO page. Replying Affidavit of the Plaintiff 18. The plaintiff swore an affidavit in response to the affidavit of Mr. Gilbert on 16th June 2016. This affidavit also contains a mixture of averments as to fact and legal submissions. He states that the defendant proffers no evidence to support the allegation that he was in receipt of bribes. It is also stated by Mr. Muwema that the defendant continues to allow TVO to post defamatory material and draws the Court’s attention to a post by TVO on 1st June, 2016 which sates: “I am still busy collecting evidence on people who betrayed Ugandans in the recent election and I will be publishing a full report soon, and then this lousy Advocate Muwema, who pocketed bribes both in the Mukono-Katpso Road Project and represented a fake company (see attachment) where the tax payer lost trillions, comes up with his futile attempt to cleanse himself from his participation in his office “break in”. He must be reminded that Facebook is not banana republic enterprise [sic], and it has been sued by lawyers basb [sic] in Manhattan, Times Square, to no result. For their ground rule is to protect freedom of information, so the lawyers Muwema hired from little suburb of Dublin, Ireland, may sound scarily to Ugandan ears, but they will hit a dead end.” 19. The plaintiff seeks to argue that there is an obligation on the defendant to monitor and remove unlawful content, once it received proper notification from the plaintiff. He avers that the defendant has violated its own Statement of Rights and Responsibilities in not removing the Reported Content, despite having “found nothing to lead to a finding that the material is true.” The plaintiff takes exception to the averment in Mr. Gilbert’s affidavit that the posts amount to comment and opinion. www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2016/H519.html 4/15