The Virtual Verdict: How Social Media is Reshaping Defamation Laws in Nigeria

by Idris Abdulgafar Olawale (El Labeeb)

Introduction

In today’s digital age, a single misinterpreted moment can swiftly escalate into a devastating narrative that spread like wildfire on social media. A stark illustration of this phenomenon is the story of how A popular Nigerian celebrity was defamed on X (Twitter) by an anonymous user who falsely accused her of being involved in a scandalous affair.

The tweet went viral, causing significant emotional distress and damage to the celebrity’s reputation. The celebrity later sued the Twitter user for defamation, highlighting the need for greater accountability on social media platforms. It is indisputable that Defamation is a legal term that refers to the act of harming the reputation of another person by making false and malicious statements about them.

This can have serious consequences for the victim, such as loss of dignity, self-esteem, business, and social relationships. Defamation can also affect the public interest, as it can undermine the credibility of public figures, institutions, and the media.

In Nigeria, defamation is regulated by various laws, such as the Criminal Code, the Penal Code, the Cybercrime Act, the Constitution, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. These laws aim to balance the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of reputation, which are both fundamental human rights.

It is indisputable that Social media has transformed Nigerian society by amplifying free expression, which evident from enabling citizens to voice opinions and hold leaders accountable. While It has boosted entrepreneurship, with platforms like X, Facebook and Instagram driving small business growth and digital marketing. However, it has also fueled misinformation, cyberbullying, and defamation, straining social cohesion and legal frameworks.

Politically, it shapes narratives, mobilizes protests like #EndSARS, and influences elections. Culturally, it blends global trends with local identity, reshaping norms and sparking debates on morality and tradition. Though Studies reveal That The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) does not explicitly provide a definition of defamation, leaving such specificity to statutory enactments like the Criminal Code and the Cybercrimes Act. While Section 39 of CFRN guarantees freedom of expression, it permits reasonable restrictions to safeguard the rights of others, including reputation, without delineating the contours of defamation itself.

Consequently, This means Constitution is the bedrock of our laws, delegating the precise articulation of this offense to subsidiary legislation. However, According to Section 373 of the Criminal Code Act defamation is defined as any matter likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by any injury to his reputation. It further notes that defamatory matter can be expressed in various forms, including spoken words, any Audible sounds, written text, or visible signs, either directly or through insinuation or irony.

This definition has operative effect and judicially enforceable within the southern Nigerian jurisdictions. Furthermore, Section 391 of the penal code Act, That’s applicable in northern state of Nigeria defines defamation as whoever by words either spoken or reproduced by mechanical means or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.

Study reveals that Unlike the provisions of the Aforementioned two Acts, Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015 Only Addresses defamation-like behavior under the umbrella of cyberstalking in Section 24 which covers online actions that harm a person’s reputation. Under Section 24(1)(a)(b) of the original 2015 Act, it is an offense for any person to knowingly or intentionally send a message or other matter by means of computer systems or networks that he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will, or needless anxiety to another, an offense which will make the person be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not more than 3years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

However, Studies reveal That The 2024 Amendment revised Section 24 to refine its scope, focusing on cyberstalking while removing some of the vague terms like annoyance or needless anxiety. The amended Section 24(2)(a) now states that a person commits an offense if they intentionally transmit any communication through a computer system or network that is false, and such communication is intended to bully, threaten, or harass another person, or places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm or cause harm to their reputation.

Though Studies reveal that this is still framed as part of cyberstalking rather than labeled cyber defamation since cybercrimes doesn’t explicitly define defamation as a standalone term like the other Two Aforementioned Code Acts.

Social media has brought big changes to how Nigeria handles defamation laws, making them fit a world where news spreads fast online. This isn’t just a small shift, but a new way of thinking, shaped by laws growing to match platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp. With social media, words that hurt someone’s name/reputation can reach so many people in no time, pushing Nigeria’s old rules such like the Criminal Code Act and newer ones, like the Cybercrimes Act of 2015, to catch up. At the same time courts are finding ways to balance free speech with protecting people’s good names in this online age.

Through a critical perusal of the laws. The Criminal Code Act, found in Sections 373 to 381, has rules about defamation that goes thus, “saying things that ruin someone’s reputation”. But it was made for things like newspapers or spoken words, not for today’s speedy posts online. That’s where the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015 helps. Its Section 24 says that it’s wrong to send false or harmful messages on phones or computers Suchlike a mean WhatsApp message or a nasty Instagram story. This law shows Nigeria stepping up to deal with bad words shared on social media and also keeping people responsible for what they say online.

The courts are also stepping in. Judges in Nigeria are seeing more cases about defamation from social media, and they’re figuring out how to handle them. A prime example is Otti v. Egeonu (2025), where Governor Alex Otti secured permission from the FCT High Court in Bwari, Abuja, to serve court documents electronically to a Facebook user, Hon. Tobias Chukwudi Egeonu, in a N50 billion defamation lawsuit.

This case highlights how social media’s speed and reach are pushing courts to modernize legal processes suchlike allowing electronic service to address defamatory posts that can instantly damage reputations across wide audiences, reflecting a shift in how defamation law adapts to digital platforms.

Also, in Okoye Blessing Nwakaego v. Eniola Badmus (2023), Okoye was convicted for posting a false, offensive video on TikTok, accusing actress Eniola Badmus of being a “professional pimp.” The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos state, presided over by Justice Nicholas Oweibo, sentenced her to three years in prison or a N150,000 fine under Section 24(1)(b)(2)(a)(c) and Section 27(1)(a)(b) of the cybercrimes Act of 2015 which is showing how courts address social media harms.

Though, her guilty plea and remorse led to the fine option, but the judgement focused on the cybercrimes Act’s provisions. Aside that the judgement significantly reaffirms society’s commitment to safeguarding the well-being of individuals in the digital space, it also serves as a deterrent to potential cyberstalkers and individuals engaging in online harassment. While also sending a clear signal that harmful actions on social media platforms will face severe legal repercussions.

Furthermore, the court’s decision highlights the importance of digital literacy and responsible online behavior. It emphasizes the need for individuals to understand the boundaries of acceptable conduct in the online realm and the potential consequences of crossing those boundaries. This ruling serves as a reminder that freedom of expression should not be misused to harm or harass others. Since Social media permits people to speak freely which is a right given by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, Though, courts have to think about that too and protect the freedom while also stopping online words from causing too much harm. It’s like walking a thin line: being tough on digital defamation but still letting people talk. As laws grow and court decisions change, Nigeria’s defamation rules are being reshaped not just to punish, but to match how life works online today.

                          Defamation Laws in Nigeria

Nigeria’s defamation laws are all about protecting people’s reputations from false and damaging words, while still leaving room for free speech. It is Also Built on a mix of criminal penalties and civil remedies, these laws have deep roots and are now stretching to cover the wild world of social media. Here is a critical perusal on how they work, coupled with the rules and court cases that shape them.

First, defamation can land someone in criminal trouble. The Criminal Code Act (Cap. C38 LFN 2004), in Sections 373 to 381, calls it an offense to publish anything that drags someone’s name through the mud, which could result in jail time if you’re being caught. In An old but still-relevant case of Sim v. Stretch (1936), it’s made clearly that you don’t even need to mean harm; if the damage is done, you’re on the hook. It’s a strict line in the sand.

Then there’s the civil side, where it’s less about punishment and more about compensation. Studies make it known that Under common law and state-level Torts Law, you can sue for a payout if someone’s lies hurt your standing. The Supreme Court in Registered Trustees of AMORC v. Awoniyi & Ors (1994), backed this up, by saying that you don’t have to show empty pockets; just a bruised reputation is enough to win damages for written defamation like libel. Which is all about making things right.

Now, enter the digital age. Social media flipped the script, and the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015, Section 24, stepped in to tackle it. This law zeros in on nasty texts or posts, such as venomous tweet and makes them illegal. A court in Cubby v. CompuServe (1991) also put it to use, pinning down a publication spat with lessons for online fights, proving the law’s got teeth online too. However, it’s not all about clamping down free speech locked in by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as it Also gets a say too. Which means Courts have to juggle both sides. It has once been witnessed in Lagos High court where a judge sorted out an online mess by holding the line on defamation but nodding to the right to speak out, showing how the rules bend for today’s world. It’s now a trite that Nigeria’s defamation laws weave together old statutes, fresh digital fixes, and court wisdom that entails guarding reputations without fully silencing the chatter.

However, Current laws in the age of social media in Nigeria are not without their challenges:—-In Nigeria, the advent of social media has exposed significant deficiencies in current legal structure, particularly in regulating defamation amidst the platform’s speed, scale, and anonymity. Laws struggle to address the instantaneous spread of defamatory content, protect free speech while curbing harm, and assert jurisdiction over global platforms, reshaping how defamation is understood and adjudicated. A primary challenge is adapting traditional defamation laws to social media’s viral nature. The Tort of Defamation rooted in common law and recognized under Nigerian jurisprudence, requires proving a false statement that harms reputation.

However, its application falters online, where posts spread rapidly across borders. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, criminalizes sending messages that are grossly offensive or false to cause annoyance, under the section 24 of the Act. but its vague wording has led to overuse against critics, as seen in the arrest of journalist Agba Jalingo in 2019 for posts criticizing the government. this section also aims to tackle this by penalizing false statements causing annoyance, but its broad phrasing has been criticized for misuse. For instance, in 2020, activist Omoyele Sowore faced charges under this Act for tweets alleging corruption, which is highlighting how the law blurs defamation and political suppression, and also raising questions about its fit for social media era disputes.

Judicial authorities have further highlighted this tension in notable cases, where the courts awarded damages for a false Facebook post, relying on traditional defamation principles. However, the ruling overlooked the platform’s role and the post’s global reach, thereby exposing gaps in statutory guidance. Comparatively, the persuasive Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523, struck down a vague law for stifling online speech, a precedent Nigerian courts might consider as they refine defamation boundaries.

Social media’s anonymity and amplification also complicate proving intent and harm, which are core elements of defamation, while platforms like Twitter too also evade local liability unlike traditional publishers. As Nigeria’s legal system grapples with these issues, the interplay of statutes like the 1999 Constitution(section 39, which guarantees free expression) and evolving judicial responses signals a gradual reshaping of defamation law to meet digital realities.

Flowing from The Above immediate paragraph among others, it must be duly noted that among the challenges faced by current laws in Nigeria in the age of social media, are:

– How to balance free expression with the need to protect individuals’ reputations

– How to hold social media platforms accountable for defamatory content

– How to prove intent and harm in the context of social media.

However, An observation must Also be made into the increased reach and speed of defamatory statements in Nigeria:— In Nigeria today, the reach and speed of defamatory statements have surged, due to widespread use of social media and digital platforms. With millions of Nigeria active on networks like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, false and harmful statements can spread instantly to vast audiences, often going viral within hours.

This is a dramatic shift from the past, where defamation was limited to slower mediums like print or word of mouth, amplifying both its potential impact and the challenge of controlling it. As of February 24 2025, Study reveals some major statistics that evince the increased rate and speed of defamatory statements in Nigeria today, With Which Nigeria having 31.6 million active social media users in January 2023 which is representing 14.3% of the population, Projection suggest this number could exceed 90 million by 2025. false or harmful statements can go viral within hours across networks like WhatsApp (88% of users, ~79 million), Facebook (42%, ~38 million), Instagram (23%, ~21 million), TikTok (28%, ~25 million), Twitter (13%, ~12 million), and Telegram (17%, ~15 million). Supported by 122.5 million internet users, 193.9 million mobile connections, and an average of 3 hours 44 minutes spent daily online, this marks a stark shift from slower traditional mediums, amplifying defamation’s impact and complicating control efforts as connectivity and platform growth (8% globally in 2023–2024) continue to rise.

However, studies evince that there is tension between anonymity and accountability on social media. Which evident from how Social media makes it easier for harmful words to spread by mixing the ability to stay hidden with the power to reach people instantly. This creates a tricky situation between letting people speak freely and holding them responsible for what they say. When users can hide their identities, they might feel safe posting careless or mean things without worrying about the consequences, we see this in cases of online bullying. But that same ability to stay hidden can also protect people who need to share important truths or speak up in tough situations where they might be at risk.

On the other hand, making sure people are held accountable means we need to know who they are. Courts and laws often struggle to figure out who’s behind harmful posts while still respecting people’s right to privacy. In this messy space, false or hurtful statements can spread quickly, hurting someone’s reputation before the real story has a chance to come out. Platforms like X shows this clearly: fake names let people say bold things, but it’s hard to track down who’s really responsible. Flowing from the above analysis, it must be duly noted that the tension between anonymity and accountability on social media remains an intricate challenge. As technology keeps moving faster, finding a balance that protects free speech while holding individuals responsible for their action is crucial.

A CASE STUDY

Since it is duly noted that this Article aims to explicate how social media is reshaping defamation laws in Nigeria, an in-depth examination of real-life example of a defamation case in Nigeria involving social media would be provided. Including the analysis of the case and its implication for defamation. For instance, One recent case that sheds light on the intersection of social media and defamation laws in Nigeria is the Falana’s case, which will be analyzed in detail below.

In the scenario, Femi Falana who is a prominent Nigerian lawyer, was falsely accused of demanding a bribe to facilitate a pardon for a prisoner(Bobrisky). The accusation was made by a blogger who published an audio recording of a conversation between Bobrisky and an unidentified third party. The blogger claimed that the conversation implicated Falana in a bribery scheme, but Falana denied ever having such a discussion with Bobrisky.

Despite Falana’s denial the blogger continued to make defamatory statements, suggesting that Falana was involved in corrupt activities. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) called for an independent investigation into Bobrisky’s case, but Falana’s reputation had already been damaged by the blogger’s defamatory statements. Falana’s lawyers argued that the blogger’s actions were defamatory and had lowered Falana’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. They also pointed out that the blogger had not verified the audio recording before publishing it and had made highly prejudicial comments about Falana.

Unarguably, it is a fact that this incident reveals the danger of defamation on social media and how social media is reshaping our defamation laws, which also serves as a cautionary tale for bloggers and Online publishers, and also emphasizing the needs for responsible communication to avoid defamation and its consequences. So, Flowing from the incident in the scenario, it reminds us of how social media can be used to spread false information and how essential it is to be mindful of what we share online to avoid hurting others and their reputations. Consequently, Flowing from this scenerio of Femi Falana and the blogger’s accusations, several key implications of defamation are deducible. particularly in the context of Nigerian law and its broader social and professional ramifications. By virtue of Section 373 of the Criminal Code Act, we’ve all known that Defamation occurs when a false statement is made that harms an individual’s reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or causing them to be shunned or avoided by reasonable members of society. In this scenario, the blogger’s actions which resulted in publishing unverified claims and an audio recording alleging Falana demanded a bribe carry significant consequences.

First, there’s the legal implication. In Nigeria, defamation can be pursued as both a civil wrong (a tort), and in some cases a criminal offense under the Criminal Code or Penal Code, depending on the jurisdiction. For civil defamation, Falana’s lawyers would likely argue that the blogger’s statements were libelous (since they were written or published online) and damaged his reputation as a prominent lawyer.

The key elements they’d need to prove include: the statement was false, it was published to a third party, it identified Falana, and it caused harm. The blogger’s failure to verify the audio recording before publication weakens any defense of truth or fair comment, while the continued defamatory statements after Falana’s denial could suggest malice that’s further strengthening Falana’s case. If successful (outcome of the law suit), Falana could seek damages for the reputational harm and possibly an injunction to stop further publication.

Second, there’s the professional and social impact. Falana as a well-known legal figure, relies heavily on his reputation for integrity. The blogger’s accusations even if baseless, it could erode public trust in him, affecting his practice, relationships with clients, and standing within the Nigerian Bar Association. The fact that the NBA called for an investigation into Bobrisky’s case shows how such claims can ripple outward, prompting scrutiny even when the accused denies involvement. This demonstrates how defamation doesn’t just harm the individual but can also destabilize their professional ecosystem, especially in a field like law where credibility is paramount.

Third, the case underscores the ethical and practical challenges of modern media. The blogger’s rush to publish without verification reflects a broader issue in the digital age: the speed of information dissemination often outpaces accountability. While freedom of expression is a right, it’s not absolute because when it crosses into falsehoods that harm others, it becomes actionable. Nigerian courts have historically recognized this balance, and Falana’s legal team would likely emphasize the blogger’s recklessness as aggravating the defamation.

Finally, there’s a reputational quandary. Even if Falana wins a defamation suit, the initial damage such as public doubt and whispers of corruption, might linger. This is the insidious nature of defamation: once the seed of suspicion is planted, it’s hard to fully uproot, especially in a society where corruption allegations carry heavy weight. The blogger’s persistence despite Falana’s denial amplifies this harm, making the legal battle as much about restoring trust as securing compensation.

Conclusion

Nigeria’s journey with defamation in the age of social media is a story of adaptation and tension. The digital era has turned platforms like X, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and Others into double-edged swords, which are spaces where voices can rise, businesses can thrive, and protests can ignite, but also where a single false claim can shatter a reputation in hours. In conclusion, Ranging From the celebrity suing over a viral tweet, to Femi Falana also battling a blogger’s reckless accusations, we could see how the speed, reach, and anonymity of online spaces have outpaced traditional laws like the Criminal Code and even newer ones like the Cybercrimes Act. 

Though courts are also stepping up, weaving old principles with modern realities, but the struggle remains: how to protect free speech without letting it become a weapon to harm others. wether through defamation, harassment, or other forms of abuse. Nigeria’s legal system is evolving, pushed by cases that demand accountability yet remind us of the delicate balance with expression.

As social media continues to shape society, the lesson is clear that our laws, our courts, and even our own online habits must grow wiser to safeguard reputations without silencing the chatter that defines our times (As it is also evident from the rights guaranteed by section 39 of CFRN). It’s not just about punishment or compensation; it’s about finding a way to live truthfully in a world where words travel faster than ever before.