Before You Press the “Share” Icon: A Legal Analysis of Reposting False Allegations in Nigeria, By Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye

The digital age has turned anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection into a publisher. This power carries immense legal responsibility, a reality many Nigerian internet and smartphone users either ignore or discover only when it is too late.

A recent wave of sensational accusations directed at a prominent gospel singer illustrates the point. As viral rumours flooded social-media timelines, thousands of users eagerly retweeted, reposted and forwarded potentially defamatory content without pausing to consider the legal consequences. Others recorded voice-overs that repeated and amplified the allegations. In doing so, many laboured under the dangerous illusion that they were merely “sharing” news rather than publishing it.

In defamation law, that misconception can prove extremely costly. Under Nigerian jurisprudence, anyone who repeats or shares a defamatory statement may incur legal liability even if they were not the original author.

Nigerian civil law treats defamation as a serious wrong and seeks to balance freedom of expression against the protection of individual reputation. A common myth among social-media users is that adding a disclaimer such as “Forwarded as received,” “Allegedly” or “#Shared” automatically shields them from liability.

It does not.

Nigerian law recognises that the repetition of defamatory material may itself amount to a fresh publication. As the Court of Appeal reiterated in Daily Times Nigeria Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559, where there is a series of defamatory publications, each publication may constitute a separate cause of action.

A person who shares a defamatory post cannot necessarily escape liability by claiming not to be its author. By repeating the allegation, that person may have widened the circle of harm.

When defamatory allegations are published online in written or other permanent form, they may constitute libel. In a civil action, the claimant must generally establish that the words complained of were defamatory, referred to the claimant, and were published to at least one third party. A repost or retweet may satisfy the publication requirement, depending on the circumstances.

Online publication carries far-reaching implications because of its universal accessibility and minimal barriers to access. Nigerian courts do not treat digital defamation lightly. High-profile cases have produced substantial damage awards, sometimes running into hundreds of millions of naira.

Jurisdiction also raises serious issues for those who publish defamatory material online. A person who shares a defamatory post in Lagos that is accessed in Abuja may find themselves defending a lawsuit in Abuja, provided the legal requirements for jurisdiction are met.

In Daily Times Nigeria Plc v. Arum, the Court of Appeal examined the nature of online publication and the circumstances in which a court may exercise jurisdiction over defamatory material accessed within its territory. The court recognised that an online publication may give rise to a cause of action when third parties access or download it, subject to applicable jurisdictional rules. Its reasoning also drew on foreign authorities concerning publications made in one country and accessed in another. The implication is clear: geographical distance does not necessarily shield an online publisher from legal proceedings.

Beyond civil remedies, publishing defamatory material may attract criminal liability under applicable Nigerian laws.

In Southern Nigeria, Section 373 of the Criminal Code Act defines defamatory matter as matter likely to injure a person’s reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or by damaging their professional or commercial reputation. Under Section 375, publishing defamatory matter is a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. If the publisher knows the matter is false, the maximum term rises to two years.

In Northern Nigeria, Section 391 of the Penal Code addresses defamatory imputations made or published by spoken words, mechanical reproduction, written signs or visible representations, where the person intends to harm, or knows or has reason to believe the imputation will harm, another person’s reputation. Under Section 392, the punishment may extend to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The Penal Code also contains additional provisions dealing with the printing, engraving and sale of defamatory material. This criminal framework operates alongside federal legislation.

The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, was amended in 2024. The amendment substantially revised the controversial Section 24 on cyberstalking, which had previously been invoked against citizens over online content said to cause “annoyance” or “insult.”

Following a judgment of the ECOWAS Court of Justice, the 2024 amendment removed those broad expressions from Section 24(1). The revised provision targets specific communications, including messages known to be false and sent to cause a breakdown of law and order or pose a threat to life. An offence under the amended Section 24(1) carries a fine of up to ₦7 million, imprisonment for up to three years, or both.

It is important to distinguish ordinary allegations of defamation from conduct that meets the particular requirements of a criminal offence under the Cybercrimes Act. The mere fact that a publication is offensive or damaging to reputation does not, by itself, establish cyberstalking under the amended law.

The frenzy surrounding the accusations against the gospel artiste serves as a stark warning. Social media gives everyone a loud voice, but it also subjects users to legal responsibilities comparable to those borne by traditional newspaper publishers and writers.

Before sharing a scandalous claim, ask yourself: Is this verified? Do I have proof? Am I prepared to defend what I am publishing in a court of law? Am I ready to hire a lawyer, face a civil claim for damages or, where the elements of a criminal offence are established, face prosecution and possible imprisonment?

If the answer is no, let the rumour end with you.

A single tap of the share icon may be all it takes to turn a bystander into a defendant in a defamation suit, with the real possibility of heavy damages that can swallow a lifetime’s savings and leave a person financially ruined.

Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN