Why I published false stories about Governor Soludo, son – Blogger

A recent admission by a blogger to publishing entirely false stories about Governor Soludo and his son highlights the intricate legal landscape governing online content in Nigeria. This incident brings into sharp focus the dual nature of defamation law in the country, encompassing both civil and criminal liabilities, alongside the evolving provisions of the Cybercrime Act. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the critical need to understand the interplay between the constitutional right to freedom of expression, the protection of reputation, and the severe consequences of disseminating misinformation. The blogger's public retraction, while potentially mitigating, does not absolve them of potential civil claims for damages or criminal prosecution under relevant statutes, particularly the Cybercrime Act 2015 (as amended by the 2024 Act) and the Criminal Code Act.

The digital age has profoundly reshaped the contours of public discourse, offering unprecedented avenues for information dissemination while simultaneously presenting novel challenges to the protection of individual and institutional reputations. A recent development in Nigeria, where a blogger publicly confessed to fabricating and publishing false stories concerning Governor Soludo and his son, serves as a stark reminder of these complexities. The blogger's admission – stating, “I publicly admit that the stories I published concerning Governor Soludo and his son were completely fake, false, fabricated, and untrue. They did not come from Governor Soludo, his son, his family, or any official representative” – immediately triggers a cascade of legal considerations under Nigerian law. This incident is not merely a matter of journalistic ethics but a potent illustration of the legal ramifications that arise from the deliberate propagation of falsehoods in the public sphere.

This article aims to dissect the legal implications of such an admission within the Nigerian jurisdiction, focusing on the interplay of defamation laws, the Cybercrime Act, and constitutional provisions on freedom of expression. For legal professionals, understanding these dynamics is crucial for advising clients, whether they are victims of online falsehoods or individuals facing potential liability for their digital publications. The case underscores the ongoing tension between safeguarding free speech and preventing the erosion of public trust and individual reputations through malicious or reckless online content.

The legal framework governing defamation and online publications in Nigeria is multifaceted, drawing from common law principles, statutory provisions, and constitutional guarantees. At its core, Section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) enshrines the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. However, this fundamental right is not absolute and is expressly subject to laws that protect against libel, slander, and injurious falsehood.

Defamation in Nigeria exists as both a civil wrong (tort) and a criminal offence. Civil defamation, typically categorised into libel (written or permanent form) and slander (spoken or transient form), aims to compensate individuals whose reputations have been damaged by false statements. For libel, damages are presumed once the defamatory nature and publication are proven, making it actionable per se. Criminal defamation, on the other hand, is codified in statutes such as the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and the Penal Code (applicable in Northern Nigeria). Section 373 of the Criminal Code Act defines defamatory matter as that likely to injure a person's reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or damaging their profession or trade. Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act prescribes imprisonment for publishing defamatory matter, with a more severe penalty for publishing matter known to be false. The distinction often lies in the intent and the potential to incite public disorder, with criminal defamation focusing on public peace rather than solely individual reputation.

Adding another layer of complexity is the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. Prior to its amendment, Section 24 of the Act criminalised sending messages via computer systems known to be false, for purposes such as causing annoyance, inconvenience, insult, or injury. This provision, however, faced significant criticism for its broad wording and its perceived use in suppressing free speech, leading to rulings by the ECOWAS Court of Justice for its amendment. Consequently, the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024 revised Section 24, now limiting the offence to transmitting pornographic or false information that could cause a “breakdown of law and order” or “pose a threat to life.” This amendment seeks to narrow the scope of criminal liability for online publications, aligning it more closely with democratic principles.

The blogger's explicit admission that the stories about Governor Soludo and his son were “completely fake, false, fabricated, and untrue” significantly simplifies the burden of proof for the aggrieved parties in any potential civil defamation suit. In a civil action for libel, the claimant must typically prove that the statement was defamatory, referred to them, and was published to a third party. The falsity of the statement is a crucial element, and while traditionally presumed in libel, the Supreme Court's decision in *Abalaka v. Akinsete* now places the onus on the claimant to prove both the defamatory nature and the falsity of the statements. The blogger's admission directly satisfies the falsity requirement, removing a significant hurdle for the Governor and his son. The publication of these false stories online would constitute libel, making them actionable per se, meaning damages are presumed without needing to prove specific financial loss.

Beyond civil liability, the blogger's actions could attract criminal prosecution. Under Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, publishing defamatory matter knowing it to be false carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. The blogger's admission of knowing the stories were false directly implicates this provision. Furthermore, the Cybercrime Act 2015, as amended by the 2024 Act, remains a potent tool against online falsehoods. While the earlier, broader language of Section 24, which criminalised messages causing mere "annoyance" or "ill will," has been narrowed, the amended Section 24 still penalises the transmission of false information that causes a "breakdown of law and order" or "poses a threat to life." Depending on the nature and impact of the false stories, particularly concerning a public figure like a governor, it is conceivable that such publications could be argued to have the potential to cause a breakdown of law and order or threaten public peace, thereby falling within the ambit of the amended Cybercrime Act.

The public nature of the admission, while a clear acknowledgment of wrongdoing, does not automatically negate legal consequences. In civil proceedings, it could be considered a mitigating factor in the assessment of damages, potentially reducing the quantum of compensation awarded. However, it also serves as compelling evidence against the blogger, making a successful defence based on truth or fair comment impossible. In criminal proceedings, a confession is a strong piece of evidence, though due process would still require a thorough investigation and prosecution. The case highlights the ongoing debate in Nigeria regarding criminal defamation, with many legal experts advocating for its abolition, arguing that civil remedies are sufficient to protect reputation and that criminalisation can stifle legitimate criticism and free speech. However, as the law currently stands, both civil and criminal avenues remain open.

For public figures, the threshold for proving defamation can sometimes be higher, particularly concerning matters of public interest. However, the blogger's admission of outright fabrication removes any defence of public interest or fair comment, as the statements were not based on any truth. The *Falana v. Meta* case, while primarily addressing platform responsibility and data privacy, also underscores the increasing judicial recognition of the harm caused by online falsehoods and the evolving legal landscape to address them. The blogger's actions represent a clear breach of the ethical standards expected of media practitioners and a violation of legal duties to disseminate truthful information.

The blogger's public confession to publishing false stories about Governor Soludo and his son serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners and the public alike about the serious legal ramifications of online misinformation in Nigeria. This incident underscores that the constitutional right to freedom of expression is not absolute and is balanced by the imperative to protect individual reputations and maintain public order. Practitioners must be acutely aware of the dual nature of defamation law – civil and criminal – and the specific provisions of the Cybercrime Act 2015, as amended by the 2024 Act, when advising clients on matters of online content.

For those representing victims of online falsehoods, the blogger's admission provides a strong basis for pursuing civil claims for damages and potentially criminal charges. For those advising content creators, this case highlights the severe penalties, including imprisonment and substantial fines, that can arise from knowingly disseminating false information, even with a subsequent retraction. The evolving landscape, particularly with the amendment to Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act, indicates a legislative intent to refine the scope of criminal liability for online publications, focusing on more egregious harms like threats to public order or life. Practitioners should continue to monitor judicial interpretations of these amended provisions and advocate for a balanced approach that upholds both freedom of expression and the protection of reputation in Nigeria's dynamic digital environment.