ONLINE DEFAMATION IN NIGERIA: CAN YOU BE SUED FOR WHAT YOU POST, LIKE, REPOST OR FORWARD?

Introduction

Social media has fundamentally changed the way Nigerians communicate.

With a smartphone and an internet connection, virtually anyone can instantly publish information to

hundreds, thousands or even millions of people. Facebook posts, WhatsApp broadcasts, X posts, Instagram stories, TikTok videos, blogs, YouTube channels and online forums have made communication faster and more accessible than ever before.

But this freedom comes with legal responsibility.

A statement made casually in a WhatsApp group, an accusation posted during an argument on Facebook, a damaging video uploaded to TikTok, or even the republication of somebody else's allegation may have serious consequences where it unlawfully damages another person's reputation.

One of the most common misconceptions among social-media users is:

"I did not write it; I only reposted it."

Another is:

"I said 'allegedly', so nobody can sue me."

Others believe that adding "forwarded as received" to a message automatically protects them from liability.

The law is not necessarily so forgiving.

This article examines online defamation under Nigerian law, the circumstances in which a person may be liable for what he or she posts, republishes or forwards, the distinction between legitimate criticism and defamation, and the steps individuals and businesses can take to protect themselves.

What Is Defamation?

Defamation is, broadly speaking, the publication of a statement concerning another person which is capable of lowering that person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, exposing the person to hatred, ridicule , contempt  or causing others to shun or avoid him or her.

Defamation traditionally takes two principal forms:

Libel concerns defamatory material expressed in a permanent or relatively permanent form, traditionally including writing, newspapers, photographs and similar publications.

Slander generally concerns defamatory statements expressed in a transient form, particularly spoken words.

Because online publications are ordinarily recorded, stored, reproduced and capable of being repeatedly accessed, many defamatory social-media publications will potentially fall within the category of libel.

Nigerian appellate courts have repeatedly recognised that, for an action founded upon libel, the words complained of must be defamatory of the claimant and must have been published to another person.

Freedom of Expression Is a Constitutional Right--But It Is Not Unlimited

Section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) guarantees every person freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.

This constitutional protection is fundamental to a democratic society.

People must be free to:

1)Criticise government

2)Question public officials

3)Express opinions about businesses and services

3)Participate in public debate

4)Report wrongdoing

5)Publish reviews

6)Disagree with others

7)Speak about matters affecting society.

However, freedom of expression does not confer an unrestricted right to destroy another person's reputation by publishing defamatory falsehoods.

Section 45 of the Constitution recognises that certain fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, may be subject to laws reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for specified purposes, including the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.

The law therefore attempts to maintain a balance between two important interests:

the right of one person to speak freely, and the right of another person to protect his or her reputation.

 

When Can an Online Publication Become Defamatory?

Not every insulting, unpleasant or embarrassing statement constitutes actionable defamation.

Generally, several important questions arise.

1. Was a Statement Made About an Identifiable Person?

The publication must concern the person complaining of defamation.

It is not always necessary for the claimant's name to be expressly stated.

A photograph, job description, nickname, office held, surrounding circumstances or other identifying information may potentially enable readers to understand who is being referred to.

For example, writing:

"The managing director of XYZ Company steals customers' money"

may sufficiently identify the person concerned even if his or her name is omitted.

2. Is the Statement Capable of Damaging the Person's Reputation?

Consider statements such as:

"Mr A is a fraudster."

"Mrs B stole money from her employer."

"This doctor deliberately kills his patients."

"This lawyer collects clients' money and disappears."

"This businessman is involved in money laundering."

"She sleeps with men in exchange for contracts."

Such allegations can plainly have serious reputational consequences if published without a lawful basis.

The legal question is not simply whether the claimant was offended.

The question is whether the words, considered in their context and ordinary meaning, are capable of diminishing the person's reputation in the eyes of others.

3. Was the Statement Communicated to Someone Other Than the Person Concerned?

Publication is fundamental to defamation.

If A sends an insulting message privately and exclusively to B about B, that communication may raise other legal issues, but it is not ordinarily defamation unless the defamatory material is communicated to at least one third party.

The situation changes once the statement is:

1)Posted publicly

2)Placed in a WhatsApp group

3)Sent to someone's employer

4)Emailed to customers

5)Published on Facebook

6)Uploaded to TikTok

7)Posted on X

8)Sent to family members

9)Circulated among colleagues

10)Forwarded to other persons.

Publication to even a limited audience can potentially satisfy the publication requirement.

 

 “I DID NOT WRITE IT , I ONLY REPOSTED IT”

This is where many social-media users misunderstand the law.

Defamation is concerned not only with authorship,  but also with publication.

A person who repeats or republishes a defamatory allegation can potentially incur liability for the republication.

Imagine that someone posts:

"Mr X has stolen ₦50 million from his company."

You have no knowledge of whether the allegation is true, but you repost it to your 20,000 followers with the caption:

"EVERYBODY NEEDS TO SEE THIS !"

The fact that another person originated the allegation does not necessarily insulate you from responsibility for introducing it to a fresh audience.

The principle is important:

Repeating another person's defamatory allegation does not automatically become lawful merely because you identify the original source.

Therefore, statements such as:

“Copied.”,“Culled from another page.”,“Forwarded as received.”or “Not my words.”

are not, by themselves, complete legal defences.

 

WHAT ABOUT WHATSAPP FORWARDS?

WhatsApp deserves particular attention because damaging allegations frequently spread through private and group conversations.

Suppose someone receives an unverified message alleging that a particular businessman is a fraudster.

Instead of verifying it, he forwards it to fifteen WhatsApp groups.

If the allegation is defamatory and legally indefensible, the fact that the person did not originate the message may not necessarily prevent liability for his own act of republication.

Before forwarding damaging information about an identifiable person, ask:

Do I know whether this is true?

Where did this information originate?

Is there a credible source?

Am I reporting an established fact or merely spreading an allegation?

Could this publication unjustifiably damage someone's reputation?

A few seconds of verification may prevent years of litigation.

 

CAN YOU BE SUED FOR REPOSTING OR RETWEETING?

Potentially, yes.

A repost may expose defamatory material to an entirely new audience.

The larger the audience, the greater the potential reputational damage may become.

This is particularly important for:

1)Influencers

2)Bloggers

3)Celebrities

4)Journalists

5)Media organisations

6)Social-media administrators

7)Individuals with large online followings.

A person with 500,000 followers who republishes an allegation may inflict considerably more reputational harm than the obscure account that originally published it.

The extent of publication may consequently become relevant when a court considers damages.

 

CAN YOU BE SUED SIMPLY FOR “LIKING” A DEFAMATORY POST?

This requires greater caution.

A mere “like” should not automatically be treated as equivalent to writing or expressly republishing a defamatory statement.

The legal consequences may depend on the particular platform, what the action actually communicated, whether the user added words adopting the allegation, whether the conduct materially facilitated republication and the surrounding circumstances.

For instance, there is an obvious difference between simply clicking a reaction button and deliberately writing beneath a defamatory allegation:

"This is absolutely true. I know what this man has done. Everyone should share this."

The latter may amount to an adoption and further publication of the allegation.

Therefore, it would be unsafe to state that every “like” creates defamation liability. Equally, users should understand that their conduct surrounding a defamatory publication may be examined as a whole.

 

DOES USING THE WORD “ALLEGEDLY” PROTECT YOU?

Not necessarily.

This is another widespread misconception.

Adding the word “allegedly” does not magically convert a defamatory publication into a lawful one.

Consider:

"Mr X allegedly stole ₦200 million yesterday."

If there is no factual foundation whatsoever for the accusation, simply inserting “allegedly” may not save the publisher.

The court will ordinarily examine the substance, context and meaning communicated to the reasonable reader.

Similarly, ending a damaging allegation with:

"I am just asking questions"

does not necessarily protect a publisher where the supposed “question” clearly conveys a defamatory factual insinuation.

 

ONLINE REVIEWS: CAN YOU CRITICISE A BUSINESS?

Absolutely.

The law of defamation should not be used as a weapon to prevent genuine consumer complaints or legitimate criticism.

A dissatisfied customer may ordinarily describe his genuine experience.

For example:

"I ordered a product on Monday, paid ₦100,000 and it was never delivered despite several complaints."

is materially different from saying:

"Everybody running this company is a criminal and they steal customers' money."

The first may be a statement of the customer's actual experience capable of proof.

The second makes a far broader accusation.

Consumers should therefore distinguish between:

reporting what actually happened

and

making sweeping allegations of criminality, fraud or dishonesty which they cannot substantiate.

Businesses likewise should not automatically threaten every dissatisfied customer with defamation proceedings simply because the review is negative.

A negative opinion is not necessarily defamatory.

 

FACT VERSUS OPINION

The distinction between statements of fact and expressions of opinion is important.

Saying:

"In my opinion, this was the worst meal I have eaten this year"

is substantially different from saying:

"The restaurant deliberately poisons its customers."

One principally expresses a subjective assessment.

The other purports to make a serious factual allegation.

However, merely disguising an allegation as “opinion” will not necessarily protect it.

Saying:

"In my opinion, Mr A steals from his clients"

does not cease to carry a factual allegation simply because the words “in my opinion” were placed before it.

Courts examine substance rather than linguistic trick

 

DEFAMATION OF BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONALS

Defamation is not restricted to celebrities and politicians.

False online publications can also affect 

Entrepreneurs,Companies,Schools ,professionals  and  businesses.

A viral false allegation may cause:

1)Customers to withdraw

2)Contracts to be cancelled

3)Employers to terminate appointments

4)Professional relationships to collapse

5)Investors to withdraw

6)Families and personal relationships to suffer

7)Substantial reputational and economic loss.

This is why an allegation posted in seconds can potentially lead to litigation lasting considerably longer.

 

DEFENCES TO A DEFAMATION CLAIM

Being sued for defamation does not automatically mean the claimant will succeed.

Depending on the circumstances, several defences may arise.

1. Justification or Truth

Truth is a fundamental defence to defamation.

A claimant is not ordinarily entitled to maintain a reputation based upon a false version of events.

However, anyone relying on truth must be prepared to substantiate the material allegation.

It is one thing to post online:

"Everyone knows he is a fraudster."

It is another thing entirely to prove the allegation when required to do so in court.

Before publishing serious accusations, ask yourself:

“If this person sues me tomorrow, what evidence do I actually have?”

 

2. Honest/Fair Comment

The law protects legitimate comment and criticism, particularly concerning matters of public interest, provided the applicable requirements are satisfied.

Nigerian courts have recognised the defence of fair comment while stressing the importance of the factual foundation upon which the comment rests. In Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd., the Court of Appeal explained that the facts forming the foundation for the comment must be correctly and fairly stated.

The law therefore protects robust criticism, but it does not necessarily protect invented “facts” presented as criticism.

 

3. Qualified Privilege

Certain communications are made on occasions recognised by law as privileged.

Qualified privilege may arise where the person making the communication has a legal, moral or social duty or interest to make it and the recipient has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.

The Supreme Court discussed this principle in Mainstreet Bank Ltd v. Binna, while Nigerian appellate courts have consistently recognised that malice may defeat qualified privilege.

For example, making a bona fide complaint about an employee to the appropriate employer may present different considerations from publishing the same allegations indiscriminately to millions of people online.

Context therefore matters.

 

4. Absolute Privilege

Certain statements enjoy stronger legal protection because of the occasion on which they are made, including communications falling within recognised categories of absolute privilege.

This reflects the public interest in allowing certain official, legislative or judicial proceedings to operate without fear of ordinary defamation actions.

 

MALICE CAN MATTER

A publisher's conduct can become particularly significant where a defence such as qualified privilege is raised.

Evidence that a person:

1)Knew an allegation was false

2)Deliberately refused to verify obvious inaccuracies

3)Had a personal vendetta

4)Manipulated evidence

5)Selectively omitted material facts

6)Continued publishing after receiving convincing proof that the allegation was false

7)Deliberately sought to destroy the claimant's reputation

may become relevant to questions of malice and available defences.

The law recognises that qualified privilege may be defeated where publication is actuated by actual or express malice.

 

ONLINE DEFAMATION AND THE CYBERCRIMES ACT: AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

It is important not to assume that every defamatory online statement automatically constitutes the offence commonly called “cyberstalking.”

Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act was substantially amended in 2024.

Under the amended provision, criminal liability is directed toward specified forms of conduct, including knowingly or intentionally sending material known to be false for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order or posing a threat to life, as well as certain communications involving bullying, threats, harassment, kidnapping, extortion and threats to reputation in circumstances connected with extortion.

The distinction matters.

A defamatory statement may potentially create civil liability without necessarily satisfying the ingredients of a criminal offence under section 24.

Law-enforcement authorities, lawyers, complainants and members of the public should therefore avoid treating every unpleasant or defamatory social-media dispute as automatically constituting cyberstalking.

The precise words used, intention of the publisher and statutory ingredients of the alleged offence must be considered.

 

 “BUT THE INFORMATION WAS ALREADY VIRAL”

Virality is not verification.

Ten thousand people repeating a false allegation do not transform it into truth.

Neither does the fact that the allegation appeared on:

1)A popular blog

2)An influential X account

3)A celebrity's Instagram page

4)A large WhatsApp group

5)A supposedly authoritative screenshot.

Every publisher should independently exercise reasonable care before further distributing damaging allegations.

 

SCREENSHOTS, AI AND DEEPFAKES HAVE MADE VERIFICATION MORE IMPORTANT

Modern technology makes fabrication increasingly easy.

1)A screenshot can be edited.

2)A letterhead can be copied.

3)A person's photograph can be manipulated.

4)A voice can be cloned.

5)A video can be generated or altered.

An entirely false “breaking news” announcement can be designed professionally and circulated within minutes.

Consequently, the fact that something looks genuine does not mean that it is genuine.

Before republishing damaging material:

1. Identify the original source
2. Check reputable news organisations
3. Consult the supposed issuer's official channels
4. Examine whether the image or video has been manipulated
5. Seek the response of the person accused where appropriate
6. Distinguish verified facts from speculation.

 

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU HAVE ALREADY POSTED SOMETHING FALSE?

Deleting the publication may be sensible, but deletion does not necessarily erase the fact that publication already occurred.

Screenshots, archives and forwarded copies may continue to exist.

Where you discover that a damaging publication is false or materially inaccurate, consider:

1)Stopping further publication immediately

2)Correcting the false information

3)Retracting the allegation where appropriate

4)Apologising where circumstances justify it

5)Preserving relevant evidence

6)Avoiding further inflammatory exchanges

7)Obtaining legal advice, particularly where a formal demand or threatened action has been received.

A prompt and genuine correction may significantly improve the situation.

 

WHAT SHOULD A VICTIM OF ONLINE DEFAMATION DO?

Reacting emotionally may worsen the problem.

A person or business targeted by a potentially defamatory publication should consider the following steps.

1. Preserve the Evidence

Take screenshots.

Save URLs.

Record dates and times.

Preserve usernames, account details, videos, voice notes and comments.

Where possible, preserve evidence showing the extent of circulation.

Electronic material may later become important evidence in litigation.

2. Do Not Immediately Engage in an Online War

Responding with equally defamatory allegations can transform a straightforward complaint into competing claims.

3. Request Retraction or Correction

Depending upon the circumstances, a formal demand may require the publisher to:

1)Remove the offending content

2)Cease further publication

3)Retract the allegation

4)Publish a correction

5)Apologise

6)Provide appropriate undertakings.

4. Consider the Platform's Reporting Procedure

Social-media platforms may have mechanisms for reporting impersonation, harassment or unlawful content.

5. Consult a Lawyer

Not every unpleasant statement justifies litigation.

Competent legal advice can help determine:

1)Whether the statement is actually defamatory

2)The identity of the proper defendant

3)Jurisdiction

4)Available defences

5)Limitation periods

6)Preservation of electronic evidence

7)Appropriate remedies

8)Whether litigation is commercially sensible.

6. Commence Proceedings Where Necessary

Where the circumstances justify it, an injured person may approach the appropriate court for relief.

Depending upon the facts and applicable law, remedies may include:

1)Damages

2)Injunctive relief

3)Retraction

4)Correction or apology where appropriate

5)Costs

6)Other consequential reliefs.

 

BE CAREFUL BEFORE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF A CRIME ONLINE

Perhaps the greatest caution should be exercised before publicly accusing another person of criminal conduct.

Terms such as:

1)Fraudster

2)Thief

3)Scammer

4)Rapist

5)Kidnapper

6)Money launderer

7)Embezzler

or similar accusations carry serious reputational consequences.

Where the person has neither been convicted nor where the publisher possesses sufficient factual foundation for the statement, considerable legal risk may arise.

Even where someone has been arrested, remember:

Arrest is not conviction.

A person accused of an offence remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty in accordance with law.

Responsible reporting therefore distinguishes:

“Mr A has been arrested on suspicion of fraud”

from:

“Mr A is a fraudster.”

They do not necessarily communicate the same thing.

 

WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC OFFICIALS?

Public officials are not immune from criticism.

A democratic society requires citizens, journalists, civil-society organisations and political opponents to scrutinise government and those who exercise public power.

The law should not be used to silence legitimate criticism, investigation or political disagreement.

However, the public status of an individual does not necessarily grant everyone an unrestricted licence to invent damaging factual allegations about him or her.

Strong criticism may be lawful.

Satire may be lawful.

Political disagreement may be lawful.

An honestly expressed opinion may be lawful.

But knowingly fabricating damaging facts is an entirely different matter.

 

TEN RULES TO REMEMBER BEFORE YOU POST

Before publishing something damaging about another person, ask yourself:

1. Is it true?

2. Can I prove it if challenged?

3. Am I stating a fact or expressing an opinion?

4. Do I know the original source?

5. Have I independently verified the allegation?

6. Am I unnecessarily identifying the person?

7. Am I publishing because the public genuinely needs the information or merely because it is sensational?

8. Have I considered the other person's side where appropriate?

9. Would I be comfortable repeating this statement under oath in court?

10. What legitimate purpose is served by publishing it?

If you cannot satisfactorily answer these questions, reconsider publication.

 

 “FORWARDED AS RECEIVED” IS NOT A MAGIC SHIELD

The digital age has turned virtually everyone into a potential publisher.

The consequences of publication are no longer confined to newspaper houses, television stations and professional journalists.

One WhatsApp forward can reach thousands.

One X post can reach millions.

One TikTok video can destroy a reputation overnight.

With this extraordinary ability to communicate comes responsibility.

The central lesson is therefore straightforward:

Do not assume that because you did not create a defamatory allegation, you cannot be responsible for spreading it.

At the same time, the law of defamation must not become an instrument for suppressing genuine complaints, truthful reporting, honest opinion or legitimate public criticism.

The proper balance is between freedom of expression and responsibility for what we publish.

 

Conclusion

Social media is not a law-free zone.

The right to freedom of expression remains one of the foundations of a democratic society, but that right coexists with the right of individuals and businesses to protect their reputations from unlawful attack.

Before posting, reposting or forwarding a damaging allegation, verify it.

Before accusing somebody of wrongdoing, ask whether you have evidence.

Before sharing an explosive WhatsApp message simply because it is trending, remember that republication may have consequences of its own.

And if you are the victim of a damaging online publication, resist the temptation to retaliate immediately. Preserve the evidence, obtain proper legal advice and pursue the remedies available under the law.

In the age of instant publication, perhaps the safest principle is also the simplest:

PAUSE. VERIFY. THEN PUBLISH.

 

DISCLAIMER

This article is intended solely for general legal education and public enlightenment. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice based on the particular facts of an individual case. Persons affected by an actual or threatened defamatory publication should obtain professional legal advice.

SUN NATHA-ALADE & PARTNERS (SNATHAP)
Barristers, Solicitors, ADR Practitioners & Notaries Public