Forwarded. Screenshotted. Jailed -By Abiodun KOMOLAFE

At a distinguished public lecture at the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), legal luminary and Visiting Professor of Legal Practice, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, warned social media users that the internet is not a place without law, and that hiding behind a screen will not save anyone from prosecution.

Speaking on cyberstalking and criminal defamation under the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024, Olanipekun noted that technology has only given old offences a wider reach and more speed. “Everyone is entitled to be protected by the law … It is okay to criticize, but don’t destroy people’s reputation”, he cautioned.

​Hon. Justice (Prof.) Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye, who also spoke at the session, pointed out a trap many users do not see: republication. Under Section 24 of the Act, liability does not end with the author of a post. Once defamatory content is forwarded, screenshotted, or re-shared, the law treats the sender as a publisher. Put simply, what looks like casual sharing can now put anyone in court.

Beyond the FUOYE event, social media regulation has, apart from the wars in Ukraine and Iran, become the hottest issue globally. Loads of editorials and opinion pieces have been written on the subject, while in universities across the globe, examination questions are being set and dissertations written. So, the interventions are timely, given that online platforms have sunk into the dark underbelly of an ecosystem driven by junk and cheap madness.

Global experts at the recent International Bar Association conference in Copenhagen warned that generative artificial intelligence (AI), state-sponsored hacking and targeted online harassment are the bullets and blows capable of killing and burying democratic elections. It is no wonder North Korea’s Supreme Leader has kept a heavy hammer dangling over digital communication, strictly banning social media and foreign content. Even in democratic nations like Australia, age limits have now been set on platform usage, with more countries following suit by the day.

To put things in context in a rather disturbing way, let us go back all the way to 1977. Why 1977, and what is so important about that year? To answer that, let us refresh our memories: in that year, Eagles, the great California rock band, released their hit single, “Hotel California.” In that song, which has since been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame, a weary traveler pulls up to a remote hotel. Inadvertently trapped there, he hears a famous line that eerily predicted the digital age in which we now reside: “You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave,” followed by the punchline: “We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.”

Amazingly, like seers in 1977 – before Mark Zuckerberg and his peers were even born – the Eagles described and interpreted what we now know as social media. Today, hundreds of millions across the world are trapped like addicts as a result of their devices. While technology has brought good tidings, it has also produced inadvertent casualties.

It remains painful, even years later, to recall the very promising young lady who ran into a train in Lagos because she was so engrossed in looking at her device that she failed to notice the approaching danger. There might have been many harrowing stories like this. May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace!

It is now even more pronounced at a time when AI could end up being interwoven with, or frighteningly become a driver of, virtual platforms. The prospect of how to deal with “deepfakes”, cloning, and other distortions is now at the epicentre of the very shape and size of human interaction, as well as the concept of society and democracy itself.

There are frightening similarities that evoke George Orwell’s seminal, all-time classic, 1984. With the explosion of social media, it is not out of place to ponder: Will there still be critical thinking, and who will control the thought process – machines or humans? This is already a pressing issue for educators as they wrestle with how much their students are developing critical faculties versus being guided and aided by machines – a concern reflected in the explosive rise of plagiarism. Orwell’s 1984 is now interwoven with the Eagles’ Hotel California. Both terrifyingly foresaw our reality, and there is good reason to be deeply concerned.

In view of legislation being passed, starting with Australia, social media regulation is bound to become one of the most engaging and lucrative areas of legal practice in the decade ahead. There will have to be defining judgments in the highest and constitutional courts across the world. There will be loci classici as the courts try to formulate a new interpretation of the very concept of liberty. Courts will have to determine whether the parameters set by John Stuart Mill, in ‘On Liberty’, are still compatible with the notion of freedom, as well as the extent and limits of free expression, in an age of cyberspace and rapidly deepening AI.

Again, where do individual rights end, and within what framework must society apply the brakes if and when personal liberty threatens public order and social cohesion? This issue arose, for instance, at the time of the invention of the Gutenberg Press, when, for the first time in history, books could be mass-produced. The lengthy debate that ensued led to new laws on defamation, libel and sedition. It established new boundaries and a similar reassessment of limits is now inevitable with the current explosion of the digital space. This should keep lawyers and jurists well engaged in the years ahead.

It is clearly inevitable for a new interpretation to be carried out in view of widespread misuse of social media. Some of it is quite gory, with dangerous elements in the space actively encouraging, for example, still-developing minds and those who ultimately succumb to the whims of despair and take their own lives. It is already happening in Nigeria. Two young Nigerians are now in jail in Michigan, USA for sextortion. They blackmailed a 15-year-old American boy online until he took his own life. This is just one out of numerous examples that time and space do not permit us to recount.

Meanwhile, the Nigerian media ought to have given this episode wider coverage as a warning, for the suspects are giving Nigeria a bad name, and the government needs to wake up to its responsibility. Tragically, our challenge is a function of economic hardship, and the situation threatens to worsen in the absence of job-creating growth. Since the issue is more alarming in our clime than for many other countries, Nigeria should ensure that this crime typology does not lead to diplomatic entanglements with foreign nations. Deterrence and restitution must be the watchwords!

Finally, if it has not already done so, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should set up a study group on these legal issues and lead the response within the ambit of promoting the rule of law, social justice, public order and the protection of civil liberties in a democracy. These issues are setting the course for the future. Surely and certainly, the contributions by the two fine legal minds will strengthen society by acting as both a guide and a safeguard.

In the immortal words of the Ijesaman, Christopher Alexander Sapara-Williams, the first Nigerian called to the English Bar: “The legal practitioner lives for the direction of his people and the advancement of the cause of his country.” In the interest of facts and truth, Olanipekun and Omolaye-Ajileye have been faithful adherents to the principle set by Nigeria’s pioneer lawyer. Their current initiative is bound to be path-defining as we interrogate the critical issues that will shape our future.

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!