 |
| Lydia Ehisuoria Ohonsi, Esq. |
Abstract
The migration of professional and social life onto digital platforms has produced a corresponding migration of gendered violence in cyberspace. This article examines the Nigerian legal architecture governing cyberbullying and image-based abuse, with particular attention to the disproportionate online harassment experienced by female lawyers who maintain a public professional profile. It interrogates the adequacy of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2024, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, and the constitutional right to privacy, before assessing how Nigerian courts have interpreted these instruments. The article concludes that while the legislative scaffolding is broadly adequate in text, enforcement gaps, procedural delay, and an underdeveloped jurisprudence of digital harm continue to leave female practitioners under-protected, and it proposes targeted legislative and institutional reform.
1. Introduction
Digital violence — the use of information and communication technology to intimidate, demean, surveil, or sexually expose another person — is no longer a peripheral concern of internet governance; it is a mainstream civil and criminal liability question. The Nigerian Bar, an ostensibly self-regulating profession built on advocacy in the public eye, has not been spared. Female lawyers who litigate, appear on broadcast media, or maintain a visible social media presence report a pattern of gender-based abuse ranging from derogatory comment threads to the non-consensual circulation of manipulated or intimate images. This article proceeds in four parts: it first conceptualises cyberbullying and image-based abuse as distinct but overlapping torts and crimes; second, it isolates the particular vulnerability of female legal practitioners; third, it maps the legislative framework; and fourth, it evaluates the judicial approach before proposing reform.
2. Conceptualising Digital Violence: Cyberbullying and Image-Based Abuse
Cyberbullying is generally understood as repeated, intentional conduct carried out through digital means to harass, threaten, or humiliate an individual. It is distinguishable from image-based sexual abuse — commonly, if imprecisely, termed "revenge pornography" — which involves the non-consensual creation, procurement, or distribution of intimate images, including images digitally fabricated through so-called "deepfake" technology. Both phenomena implicate the constitutional right to privacy and to freedom from degrading treatment, and both are increasingly amenable to civil remedies in defamation, breach of privacy, and the tort of harassment, in addition to criminal sanction.
A useful analytical distinction is between content-based abuse (the posting of demeaning, sexualised, or fabricated material) and conduct-based abuse (persistent messaging, doxxing, and coordinated pile-ons). The two frequently converge: a single act of image-based abuse routinely triggers a secondary wave of conduct-based harassment as the material is shared, commented upon, and used as a pretext for further intimidation. Nigerian law, as will be seen, addresses the two forms unevenly — criminal provisions target the initial publication more readily than the sustained secondary harassment that typically causes the greater cumulative harm.
3. The Gender-Based Dimension: Online Harassment of Female Lawyers
Empirical and anecdotal reporting across common law jurisdictions converges on a consistent finding: women in visible professional roles, including advocacy, attract a disproportionate volume of sexualised and identity-based online abuse compared to male counterparts in equivalent roles. For female lawyers in Nigeria, this manifests in several recurring patterns: commentary that displaces professional critique with remarks on appearance or dress; the fabrication or non-consensual circulation of images intended to embarrass or sexualise; and coordinated harassment following a case outcome perceived as controversial, in which the female counsel — rather than the substance of her argument — becomes the target. This has a chilling effect on professional participation: practitioners self-censor public commentary, decline media appearances, or withdraw from social media altogether, with consequences for visibility, business development, and, ultimately, the diversity of the profession's public face.
4. Legislative Framework in Nigeria
The primary criminal instrument remains the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2024, section 24 of which criminalises the transmission of messages known to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, danger, insult, injury, or hatred, and cyberstalking more broadly. Section 24(1)(b) has, in practice, become the default charge for cyberbullying prosecutions, notwithstanding academic criticism that its drafting is broad enough to raise proportionality concerns under the freedom of expression guarantee. Section 23 separately targets identity-related offences, while section 38 imposes data retention obligations on service providers that can, in principle, assist in identifying anonymous harassers, subject to the safeguards in the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.
The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 supplies a complementary civil track: the non-consensual processing, retention, or dissemination of a person's image or personal data — including images altered by manipulation software — can found a claim before the Nigeria Data Protection Commission or the courts for breach of data protection principles, independent of any criminal prosecution. This is significant for image-based abuse specifically, because a photograph or its digital likeness constitutes personal data, and its unauthorised manipulation or circulation is capable of amounting to a data protection violation quite apart from any defamatory sting.
The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 criminalises stalking and the wilful deprivation of liberty and dignity, and several State Houses of Assembly have domesticated equivalent legislation, though its application to purely online conduct remains under-litigated. The constitutional right to privacy under section 37, and the right to dignity under section 34, remain the residual foundation for any civil action where the specific statutory provisions are inapt, and both have been relied upon, by analogy, in privacy litigation concerning the unauthorised publication of personal material.
Professionally, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners and the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Committee offer an additional, underused avenue: online harassment of a lawyer by another lawyer, or conduct by a lawyer that facilitates such harassment, is capable of amounting to infamous conduct in a professional respect. The Nigerian Bar Association's Human Rights Committee structures, at branch level, further provide an institutional channel through which harassed members can seek advocacy support that supplements, rather than substitutes for, formal legal process.
5. Judicial Approach
Nigerian courts have been receptive, in principle, to privacy-based claims arising from unauthorised digital publication, treating section 37 of the Constitution as enforceable independently of any free-standing common law tort of privacy. What remains comparatively undeveloped is a body of appellate authority squarely addressing image-based sexual abuse or sustained cyberbullying campaigns, as opposed to isolated defamatory publication. Most reported decisions engaging the Cybercrimes Act have arisen at the trial level, with limited appellate elaboration of sentencing principles or of the proper measure of civil damages for reputational and psychological harm caused specifically by online harassment.
This jurisprudential gap has practical consequences. Absent settled appellate guidance, magistrates and judges confronting cyberbullying prosecutions must construct sentencing and damages frameworks largely by analogy to conventional defamation and assault authorities that do not fully capture the scale, permanence, and virality distinctive of digital publication. The result is an inconsistency of outcome that under-deters repeat offenders and under-compensates victims, particularly in image-based abuse cases where the harm is compounded by re-publication beyond the original defendant's control.
Procedural obstacles compound the substantive gap. Complainants must typically approach the Nigeria Police Force's Cybercrime units before any prosecution can be initiated, and evidentiary requirements — proof of authorship of anonymous posts, forensic linkage of an account to an accused person, and admissibility of electronically generated evidence — remain demanding.
6. Gaps and Recommendations
Three reforms merit priority. First, the National Assembly should consider a standalone image-based abuse provision, modelled on comparable reform in other common law jurisdictions, that removes any residual requirement to prove an intent to cause distress and focuses instead on the absence of consent to distribution. Second, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission and the Nigeria Police Force Cybercrime Units should be given a fast-track, victim-centred takedown and preservation protocol, so that platforms can be compelled to remove abusive material and preserve identifying metadata within hours rather than weeks, mirroring emergency injunctive relief already available, in principle, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
Third, the Nigerian Bar Association should formalise, at national and branch level, a reporting and support mechanism specifically for members who experience online harassment, with a direct liaison channel to the Cybercrime Units and clear guidance on preserving evidence before a post is deleted. Such a mechanism would also generate the aggregate data currently missing from Nigerian scholarship on the scale of the problem, and would strengthen the evidentiary basis for any future legislative reform.
7. Conclusion
Nigerian law already possesses, in the Cybercrimes Act, the Nigeria Data Protection Act, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, and the Constitution, the textual tools to address cyberbullying and image-based abuse. What is missing is not text but traction: a settled appellate jurisprudence that treats digital harm as commensurate with its real-world consequences, a procedural regime capable of matching the speed of online re-publication, and an institutional home within the profession for members — disproportionately women — who are harassed precisely because of their public professional visibility. Closing this gap between legislative promise and practical remedy is not merely a matter of law reform; it is a precondition for the equal and undiminished participation of female lawyers in public professional life.
0 Comments