The internet is popular for its ability to provide anonymity. A person could get on the internet, hide behind a made-up name, and share opinions and thoughts on anything, freely exercising their right to freedom of speech. This feature of the internet, however, appears to have been abused by many and globally. People hide behind the internet to commit all sorts of social ills like stalking, catfishing, internet trolling, and our subject matter, cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying is defined as an intentional, aggressive act committed against a victim who is unable to defend themselves, by a group or individual, using electronic modes of contact. (Ersilla and Annalaura, 2009). This implies that a cyberbully is one or a group who intentionally harasses a person over any form of electronic communication. It could be via text, email, or social media, the latter being the most common. This differs from internet trolling which is typically similar but more impersonal and seeks to provoke or antagonize the victim to get a desired reaction (Griffiths, 2014). With cyberbullying the attacker usually knows their victim and seeks them out online to hurt them.
Let us consider the incident that occurred over the revelation of the child of Christian artist, Mercy Chinwo. The artist who recently gave birth to her son, Charis Nduka Blessed, for her husband, Pastor Blessed Uzochikwa, shared his picture for the first time on social media. While some congratulated her and her husband, some others commented that the child held a striking resemblance to another popular Christian artist, Nathaniel Bassey. Some of them even went further to state online, implicitly and explicitly that the child belonged to Nathaniel Bassey and advised Pastor Blessed Uzochikwa to get a DNA test, thus implying infidelity on the sides of both Christian artists. The individuals who made the accusation are currently being charged with Criminal Defamation at the High Court of Abuja in Nigeria, under section 392 of the Penal Code Act of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The Blesseds may have sought remedy in the laws against defamation but some other acts of cyberbullying are not within the coverage of defamation. Fortunately, the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 casts a wider net. Section 24 seeks to criminalize a wide aspect of cyberbullying and places a penalty of millions of naira in fine or imprisonment, or, where the court sees fit, both.
Section 24 of the Act provides thus
(1) Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that –
(a) is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be so sent; or
(b) 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 or causes such a message to be sent:
commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Subsection 1(a) covers indecent or obscene content, what may be termed by some as R-rated, like pornography or violent, gruesome content. Paragraph(b) goes further to expand the coverage of this provision saying that where the act is targeted towards “inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another” it is considered a crime under this section.
There is however an issue with the provision, the paragraph begins with “he knows to be false”, narrowing the coverage of the provision as one can argue that there were circumstances that seemed to point to the assertion being true or that they do not believe or know it to be false.
As a solution to this, the court may choose to apply the mischief rule of interpretation. The Mischief rule directs an interpreter of the law to consider both the issue that the statute was intended to address and how it does so when interpreting the law (Bradley, 2021). This means that when a judge interprets a law he should consider the purpose for which the law was made i.e. the societal ill that the law was made to correct and how it intended to do so, then he should interpret the law in that light. The court could interpret the section as saying that where the culprit does not know the assertion to be true, still making such assertions under the stated conditions would be covered as well by section 1(b).
Furthermore, there is the matter of proving that the alleged offender did the action to cause the stated conditions “inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another”, as stated in section 24(b). For that, the court could simply construe or deduce the intentions from the circumstances. For example, in the case of Mercy Chinwo and Nathaniel Bassey, it could be deduced that the culprits sought to get attention by causing inconvenience, annoyance, and anxiety to the victims as these feelings can be reasonably expected to occur from their accusations.
Subsection (2) states in addition-
(2) Any person who knowingly or intentionally transmits or causes the transmission of any communication through a computer system or network –
(a) to bully, threaten or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm or to another person;
Subsection (2)a would have done a good job of supporting subsection (1) concerning cyberbullying as it states the words “bully”, “threaten” and “harass” explicitly, however, the provision is then limited to where such communication places another in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person.
Note, however, that the provision does not specify the victim i.e. it does not say “where such communication places the victim in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person”, rather, it uses the word, “another”, This could be taken to mean that where another person, a person other than the victim, is put in reasonable fear for their lives or safety due to such person’s act, criminal liability may arise. It covers not just harm to the victim but other persons as well. For example, where it makes the parents, children or spouse of the target feel unsafe. This is a positive thing because it allows coverage of defamation of the dead.
For instance, If a dead person is accused of having committed a vile act against society while he was alive and social unrest results, this could put the living family members in danger. Where the accusation is untrue or not known to be true or not ascertained, criminal liability arises for the person who made the accusations. This puts a positive spin on the principle that the dead cannot be defamed (Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Dzhugashvili v Russia, 2014) The dead may not have any rights under defamation but under criminal law, those affected can seek justice under the Act.
Under section 24, cyberbullying, depending on the circumstances of the case is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to N3,000,000 or at least N25,000,000 for a crime covered under (2)a and b and at least N15 million for (2)c and d. Note that this money is a fine and not compensation, the money will not be given to the victim but paid to the government.
Nigerians often tend to avoid matters involving court proceedings or reporting to the police because of the time and money involved and a not-so-misplaced distrust for the police, however, if people are going to learn to apply decorum while on the internet and in life generally, they have to understand that actions have consequences and this can be done by seeking redress in court where you are affected by cyberbullies.
Chinenye Mbachu Esq.
References
- Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015
- Penal Code Act Chapter 53 Lfn (Abuja)
- Menesini, Ersilia & Nocentini, Annalaura. (2009). Cyberbullying Definition and Measurement: Some Critical Considerations. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-journal of Psychology – Z PSYCHOL. 217. 230-232. 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230.
- Griffiths, Mark. (2014). Adolescent trolling in online environments: A brief overview. Education and Health. 32. 85-87.
- Timothy J. Bradley, Getting into Mischief: Reflections on Statutory Interpretation and the Mischief Rule, (2021)
- Friday Omosola, Mercy Chinwo’s Son: Nathaniel Bassey petitions IGP over paternity allegations, defamation Friday, April 3, 2024
- Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Dzhugashvili v Russia (App No 41123/10)
