In an escalating social media feud that has captivated many Nigerians online, Martins Vincent Otse, a 31yrs old media activist and influencer from Edo State known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), accused cryptocurrency entrepreneur et business man Linus Williams Ifejika, a 27yrs old gentleman from Anambra State popularly called BLord, of shady business practices involving the sale of cosmetically upgraded iPhones to wit: converting iPhone XR to resemble the latest iPhone 17 Pro Max, potentially deceiving buyers with fake devices at inflated prices. The conflict intensified when BLord retaliated by leaking VDM's nude videos, prompting VDM to fire back with his own explicit content and further exposures of BLord's operations in recent reports.
Reacting to this drama especially the nude leak which has raised a compelling legal question to wit: "Who between them truly broke the law? Is BLord solely guilty for posting VDM’s nudes, or could both men be liable under Nigerian law?" Barr. Wendy Cynthia Okosa in a post she made on her Facebook page stated that in the eyes of the law, once a content is indecent or grossly offensive, it doesn’t matter who owns it, who started it, nor how long it was posted, rather all parties who created, sent, shared, or reposted such material have potentially committed an offence.
Barr. Wendy Cynthia Okosa
According to her, the aforesaid is pursuant to Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 which states that “Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be so sent… commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than ₦7,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or both.”
Additionally, Section 170(b) of the Criminal Code Act says, “Any person who knowingly sends, or attempts to send, by post anything which encloses an indecent or obscene print, photograph, book, or article, or which has on it, or in it, any indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive words or designs, is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for one year.”
From the literal wordings of both provisions, she said, the focus is on "any person who knowingly sends". This in her words mean that it is immaterial whether the content belongs to the sender or someone else. "Once an individual sends, shares, or posts any content that is pornographic, indecent, or grossly offensive, that act may amount to a criminal offence. The argument that “it’s my nude, so I can post it” does not absolve you from criminal liability. The law does not restrict the offence to people sharing another person’s nude, it applies equally to the originator and the distributor of said obscene or pornographic content publicized either by digital or physical means." Barr. Wendy said.
"Applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation," she continued, "Where the words of a law are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning. The phrase “any person who sends” therefore includes both the person who originally recorded and posted or sends the indecent content and anyone who later circulated it. Consequently, if BLord posted or circulated VDM’s nude videos online, that act clearly falls under the prohibitions of the Cybercrime Act and the Criminal Code. However, if VDM was the one who originally made public the said videos, he also falls within the same legal liability. It is immaterial that the content belongs to him or that it was shared long ago for entertainment or publicity purposes. The law does not recognize a time limit that would erase criminal responsibility for such acts."
"It must also be noted that these offences are not private wrongs but offences against the State. Either party may report the other to law enforcement, and the police are empowered to investigate and prosecute both if sufficient evidence exists." She emphasized.
The lawyer further added that if everyone were free to share their nudes without the restraint of this law, the internet would be flooded with obscene content and some Nigerians who have no sense of modesty would start posting such materials openly, turning social media into a playground for indecency."That’s exactly why the law exists, to preserve public morality and protect society from the reckless circulation of obscene content."
In her summary remark, "both VDM and BLord may be legally exposed under the same provisions of the Cybercrime Act and Criminal Code. The fact that one owns the indecent material or shared it earlier does not excuse them under Nigerian law. The law is clear: once you knowingly circulate or transmit obscene or pornographic content, you may have crossed into criminal territory."
You have not considered the territorial jurisdiction issues involved. VDM was in china as at when he did his, thus could territorial jurisdiction be a defence in this case? See Singh v fasio kotie.
ReplyDelete