Social Media And Human Rights Advocacy In Nigeria: A Legal Analysis Of Its Dual Role -By Job Joseph

Abstract

The emergence of social media has significantly transformed the manner in which human rights are promoted, protected and challenged in Nigeria. Platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok and YouTube have become important spaces for citizens, journalists, activists, civil society organisations and other stakeholders to disseminate information, document abuses, organise peaceful protests and demand accountability. However, the same platforms have also created legal challenges relating to misinformation, defamation, cyberstalking, privacy violations, surveillance, harassment and government regulation. This article examines the dual role of social media in human rights advocacy in Nigeria. It considers the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, privacy and peaceful assembly and the relevance of international human rights instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It further examines the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 as amended in 2024, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, the legal consequences of online publications and recent judicial developments concerning digital rights. The article argues that while regulation of social media is necessary to address genuine threats such as cybercrime, harassment and harmful misinformation, such regulation must remain consistent with legality, necessity, proportionality and the protection of fundamental rights. The article concludes that Nigeria requires a balanced digital rights framework which protects citizens from online harm without transforming regulation into a mechanism for suppressing legitimate human rights advocacy.

Introduction

The rise of social media has profoundly altered the terrain of human rights advocacy in Nigeria. What previously required newspapers, television, radio, public meetings or physical demonstrations can now be communicated to millions of people within a very short period. Platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok and YouTube have therefore become important tools for mobilisation, documentation, public education and accountability. Social media has also changed the relationship between citizens and government. A citizen can record an alleged abuse of power with a mobile phone and publish it to the public without necessarily passing through traditional media institutions. Human rights organisations can monitor developments in different parts of the country, while journalists can receive information from citizens in real time. The EndSARS movement demonstrated the power of social media in contemporary Nigerian human rights advocacy. Social media was used to disseminate information about alleged police abuses, coordinate demonstrations, provide emergency information and draw national and international attention to the demands of protesters. The movement therefore illustrates how digital communication can strengthen the exercise of freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. However, the development has another side. Social media can be used to spread false information, threaten individuals, invade privacy, publish defamatory materials, facilitate harassment and expose personal information without consent. Government agencies may also seek to monitor or restrict online activities in the interest of national security or public order. The central legal question is therefore not whether social media should be regulated. Rather, the important question is how social media can be regulated without unnecessarily interfering with constitutionally protected rights.

1. Constitutional Foundation of Digital Human Rights in Nigeria

The Nigerian Constitution does not contain a separate chapter specifically described as “digital rights.” Nevertheless, several constitutional rights apply to activities conducted through digital platforms. Section 39(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.[1] This provision provides an important constitutional foundation for online speech and digital journalism. Section 37 protects the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications.[2] In the digital environment, this protection has increasing relevance because social media accounts, private messages, photographs, videos and other forms of personal information can easily be collected, shared or exposed. Section 40 guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and association.[3] Social media has become an important means through which citizens organise physical meetings, peaceful protests and civil society activities. The constitutional protection of these rights, however, is not absolute. Section 45 permits laws reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or for protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.[4] The implication is that the government may regulate certain forms of online conduct, but such regulation must remain within constitutional limits. The existence of social media does not remove the protection of fundamental rights, just as the exercise of constitutional rights online does not grant users immunity from generally applicable laws.

2. Social Media as a Catalyst for Human Rights Advocacy

Social media has substantially reduced the barriers to participation in public affairs. An individual who may not have access to a newspaper column, television programme or radio station can communicate directly with a large audience. This has been particularly significant for human rights advocacy. Activists can publish reports, photographs and videos concerning alleged human rights violations. Lawyers and civil society organisations can use online platforms to educate citizens about their legal rights. Journalists can also use social media to identify issues requiring further investigation. Social media also assists in preserving evidence. Videos, photographs and eyewitness accounts may provide preliminary evidence of alleged violations. Although online materials must still satisfy applicable evidential requirements before a court can rely upon them, their existence may assist lawyers, journalists and investigators in identifying relevant events and witnesses. The digital space has equally provided opportunities for marginalised groups. Women, young people, persons with disabilities and communities whose concerns may receive limited attention from traditional media can use social media to bring their experiences before the wider public. The importance of freedom of expression in democratic participation was recognised in the jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court. In SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria, concerning the suspension of Twitter, the Court held that Nigeria’s suspension of Twitter violated rights to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom protected under the African Charter and the ICCPR.[5] The case demonstrates that the exercise of freedom of expression cannot simply be separated from the means through which expression occurs. Where a platform becomes an important avenue for communication, restrictions affecting that platform may have consequences for human rights.

3. The EndSARS Movement and Digital Human Rights Advocacy

The EndSARS movement provides one of the clearest Nigerian examples of the dual importance of social media to human rights advocacy. Social media was used to disseminate information about alleged police brutality, organise peaceful demonstrations and provide updates concerning developments in different locations. Citizens also used social media to publish photographs and videos of events surrounding the protests. The movement demonstrated that social media can function as a form of citizen journalism. Information could be generated and distributed without depending exclusively on traditional media institutions. At the same time, the movement raised important questions concerning the limits of digital mobilisation. Governments have legitimate responsibilities to maintain public order and protect lives and property. However, restrictions imposed for these purposes must still satisfy the requirements of legality and proportionality. The lesson from EndSARS is therefore that social media can strengthen democratic accountability, but its use also requires responsible conduct by both citizens and public authorities.

4. The Cybercrimes Act and Online Expression

One of the major areas of controversy in Nigerian digital rights law has been section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. The original section 24 criminalised certain forms of electronic communication using broad expressions which included materials considered grossly offensive, menacing or capable of causing annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety. Because of the breadth of these expressions, human rights organisations and journalists raised concerns that the provision could be used against legitimate criticism. The ECOWAS Court considered the original provision in litigation concerning its use against online expression. The Court found the provision arbitrary, vague and repressive and directed Nigeria to amend it to conform with its human rights obligations.[6] The legal position changed with the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024. The amendment substituted the earlier wording of section 24(1) with provisions concerning pornographic messages and knowingly false messages sent for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order or posing a threat to life. It also addressed specified threatening, bullying and harassing communications.[7] The amendment is significant because it removed some of the extremely broad language contained in the original provision. However, questions concerning interpretation and application remain. For example, the expression “breakdown of law and order” may still require careful judicial interpretation to prevent legitimate criticism, investigative journalism or peaceful advocacy from being treated as criminal conduct. It is therefore important that enforcement authorities distinguish between genuine cybercrime and the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression.

5. Cyberstalking and the Protection of Citizens from Online Harm

The protection of freedom of expression does not mean that every form of online conduct is constitutionally protected. Social media can be used to threaten individuals, engage in persistent harassment, circulate intimate materials, extort money, encourage violence or deliberately place individuals in fear. The Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024 therefore retains offences directed at threatening and harmful electronic communications. The amended law covers certain communications involving bullying, threats or harassment where the communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm, as well as certain threats relating to kidnapping, ransom, extortion, property and reputation.[8] This illustrates the difficult balance between freedom and responsibility. A person should be able to criticise a public official, question government policy or expose alleged corruption without fear of criminal prosecution merely because the criticism is uncomfortable. At the same time, a person should not be able to use the same constitutional protection as a justification for genuine threats of violence or systematic harassment. The proper approach should therefore be based on the actual nature and consequences of the communication rather than simply the identity of the speaker or the fact that the communication is directed at a public official.

6. Privacy and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023

Privacy has become one of the most important human rights questions arising from social media. Social media platforms process large amounts of personal information, including names, photographs, telephone numbers, locations, contact lists, behavioural information and other identifying information. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 provides a modern statutory framework for protecting personal data in Nigeria. Its objectives include safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects, regulating the processing of personal data and providing remedies where data protection rights are breached.[9] The Act applies to personal data processing in circumstances connected with Nigeria and can also apply to organisations outside Nigeria where they process personal data relating to data subjects in Nigeria.[10] This has significant consequences for social media companies and other technology platforms operating in Nigeria. The protection of privacy is also important for human rights advocacy. Activists, journalists and whistleblowers may rely upon confidential communications when exposing abuses. Unlawful disclosure of their personal information may expose them to intimidation, harassment or physical danger. At the same time, privacy cannot be used as a blanket justification for preventing legitimate journalism or public-interest investigations. The Data Protection Act itself recognises certain situations involving journalism, public interest and legal claims.[12] The challenge is therefore to protect personal data while preserving legitimate freedom of expression and public-interest communication.

7. Surveillance and Government Access to Digital Information

The growth of digital communication has expanded the ability of governments and law enforcement agencies to obtain and monitor electronic information. From a law-enforcement perspective, access to digital information may be necessary for investigating cybercrime, terrorism, fraud and other serious offences. However, unrestricted surveillance may interfere with privacy and freedom of expression. People may be reluctant to express legitimate opinions if they believe that every communication is being monitored by government authorities. The Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024 contains provisions dealing with subscriber information, traffic data and cybersecurity obligations.[13] These provisions must be applied alongside the constitutional right to privacy and the statutory framework established by the Nigeria Data Protection Act. The central legal principle should be that surveillance must have a lawful basis and should be connected to a legitimate purpose. Where the law requires judicial authorisation or other safeguards, those safeguards should not be ignored merely because the information exists in digital form.

8. The Suspension of Twitter and the Limits of Government Regulation

The suspension of Twitter in Nigeria in June 2021 remains one of the most important developments in the country’s digital rights history. Following the suspension, SERAP and other applicants challenged the government’s action before the ECOWAS Court. In July 2022, the ECOWAS Court declared the suspension unlawful and inconsistent with Nigeria’s obligations concerning freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom. The Court also ordered Nigeria to take measures to guarantee non-repetition.[13] The decision is significant because it demonstrates that digital restrictions may have direct human rights consequences. A government may have legitimate concerns about the activities of a technology company. However, the method adopted to address those concerns must still comply with applicable law. A particularly important subsequent development occurred in 2024 when the Federal High Court in Lagos ordered the former Minister of Information and Culture and the Ministry of Information to disclose the agreement between the Federal Government and Twitter/X following the lifting of the suspension. The court considered the disclosure relevant to determining the effect of the agreement on the human rights of Nigerians.[14] The case demonstrates the importance of transparency where government agreements with technology companies may affect the rights of citizens.

9. Defamation and the Responsibility of Social Media Users

Freedom of expression does not provide a licence to destroy another person’s reputation. The rapid nature of social media makes defamation particularly dangerous because a statement can be shared thousands of times within minutes. A false allegation that may previously have reached a limited audience through a private conversation can now reach a large audience through Facebook, X, WhatsApp, Instagram or TikTok. Nigerian courts have continued to deal with disputes arising from online publications. Recent litigation has included claims based on Facebook and other social media publications, demonstrating that online publication can have ordinary legal consequences under defamation law. The increasing use of social media has also affected court procedure. In 2025, an FCT High Court permitted substituted service of court processes in a defamation action through Facebook and WhatsApp, illustrating the growing recognition of social media as a practical means of communication in judicial proceedings.[15] In 2026, Nigerian courts continued to consider disputes involving allegedly defamatory Facebook publications and applications seeking injunctions against further online publication.[16] These developments demonstrate that social media should not be regarded as a legal vacuum. The protection of reputation is recognised by law, and persons who publish defamatory material may face civil liability. At the same time, courts must be careful to distinguish defamatory statements from fair comment, opinion, criticism and other forms of protected expression.

10. Social Media, Misinformation and Public Interest

Misinformation presents another major challenge. False information can cause panic, damage reputations, interfere with public institutions and create risks to public safety. In extreme circumstances, false information may contribute to violence or communal tension. However, attempts to combat misinformation can themselves create human rights problems if vaguely worded laws are used to criminalise criticism or unpopular opinions. The legal distinction should therefore be maintained between deliberately harmful falsehoods and genuine mistakes, opinions, satire, criticism or good-faith reporting. A rights-based approach requires laws dealing with harmful online content to be sufficiently clear for citizens to understand what conduct is prohibited. Vague criminal provisions can create uncertainty and encourage selective enforcement. This was one of the major concerns surrounding the original section 24 of the Cybercrime Act and remains relevant when considering the amended provision.

11. Online Advocacy and the Protection of Journalists

Journalists increasingly depend on social media to gather information, communicate with sources and publish reports. Consequently, restrictions on online communication may have a wider effect on press freedom. In 2024, the National Assembly itself expressed concern about arrests and harassment of journalists under cyberstalking provisions and acknowledged the constitutional protection of press freedom under section 39.[17] This development demonstrates that the legal debate is not limited to activists. It also concerns professional journalism and the ability of the media to hold public institutions accountable. The protection of journalists, however, should also be accompanied by professional responsibility. Journalists and online publishers should verify information before publication, protect confidential sources and distinguish facts from allegations and opinions.

12. Social Media Companies and Corporate Accountability

The responsibility for protecting human rights in the digital environment does not rest solely with government. Technology companies such as Meta, X and other platforms exercise significant control over online communication. Their decisions concerning content moderation, account suspension, removal of publications and disclosure of user information can directly affect freedom of expression and privacy. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights recognise the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights.[18] This principle is particularly important for social media companies because their platforms have become significant spaces for public communication. Companies should therefore establish transparent moderation rules, provide meaningful mechanisms for users to challenge wrongful account restrictions and respond appropriately to genuine threats while protecting lawful expression. A recent Nigerian example demonstrates that technology companies may become parties to litigation concerning online content. In 2026, Meta Platforms was involved in proceedings relating to alleged defamatory publications on Facebook.[19] The development illustrates an emerging area of Nigerian law in which courts may increasingly be required to determine the responsibilities of technology platforms in relation to content created by their users.

13. The Role of Civil Society Organisations

Civil society organisations remain important actors in the protection of digital rights. Organisations such as SERAP have used litigation, public advocacy and strategic communication to challenge restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information. Their role is important because digital rights often involve questions that affect large numbers of people rather than only the immediate parties to a dispute. Strategic litigation can therefore help clarify the limits of governmental powers and provide judicial guidance on emerging technologies. The ECOWAS Court cases concerning section 24 of the Cybercrime Act and the Twitter suspension demonstrate the importance of public-interest litigation in shaping the legal framework for digital rights in Nigeria. Civil society organisations should nevertheless continue to combine advocacy with legal accuracy and responsible communication. Human rights advocacy is more effective where allegations are properly documented and claims are supported by credible evidence.

14. International Human Rights Obligations

Nigeria’s obligations under international and regional human rights instruments remain relevant to the regulation of social media. Article 19 of the ICCPR protects freedom of expression, while Article 9 of the African Charter protects the right to receive information and express and disseminate opinions within the law.[20] The African Charter is particularly important because it has been domesticated in Nigeria through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.[21] International law does not necessarily prevent states from regulating harmful online conduct. Rather, restrictions on expression must satisfy recognised human rights standards, including legality and legitimate purpose, and should not be broader than necessary. The ECOWAS Court has relied on these principles in cases concerning Nigeria’s treatment of online expression. Consequently, Nigerian courts and lawmakers should consider the country’s international obligations when interpreting legislation affecting digital communication.

15. The Need for Proportionality in Digital Regulation

One of the most important principles emerging from the legal debate is proportionality. A government may legitimately seek to prevent cybercrime, protect national security, prevent threats to life and protect individuals from harassment. However, the method used should be proportionate to the legitimate objective. For example, if a particular publication is unlawful, the appropriate response may be directed at the specific unlawful content or conduct rather than imposing a broad restriction affecting millions of users. Similarly, where an individual makes a critical statement about government policy, the mere fact that the statement is harsh or unpopular should not automatically transform it into a criminal offence. The proportionality principle therefore provides a useful framework for balancing freedom and regulation.

16. Recent Judicial Developments and the Expanding Digital Rights Jurisprudence

Nigerian digital rights jurisprudence continues to develop. The courts are increasingly confronted with cases involving Facebook publications, WhatsApp communications, online defamation, account restrictions, privacy violations and the relationship between technology companies and their users. In 2024, the Federal High Court’s decision requiring disclosure of the government-Twitter agreement demonstrated the relationship between freedom of information and digital rights.[22] In 2025 and 2026, disputes involving social media publications also demonstrated that traditional areas of law, including defamation, injunctions and service of court processes, are being adapted to the digital environment. This means that Nigerian courts will increasingly be required to interpret existing legal principles in circumstances that were not contemplated when many of the laws were enacted. The challenge is to adapt the law without abandoning established principles of legality and fundamental rights.

Recommendations

1. Development of a Comprehensive Digital Rights Framework

Nigeria should continue developing a coherent legal framework governing digital rights. The framework should clearly distinguish between legitimate expression, harmful online conduct and genuine cybercrime.

2. Clearer Cybercrime Provisions

The Cybercrime Act should be interpreted and, where necessary, further amended to ensure that criminal provisions affecting speech are sufficiently clear. Law enforcement authorities should not rely on vague expressions to prosecute legitimate criticism or peaceful advocacy.

3. Protection of Privacy

The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 should be effectively implemented. Citizens should be educated about their data rights, while social media companies and other data processors should comply with their statutory obligations.

4. Judicial Protection of Digital Rights

Courts should continue to interpret constitutional rights in a manner that recognises technological development. Freedom of expression should not disappear simply because communication takes place online.

5. Protection of Journalists and Human Rights Defenders

Law enforcement agencies should ensure that journalists and human rights defenders are not subjected to arbitrary arrest or prosecution merely because they publish information critical of public officials.

6. Accountability for Genuine Online Abuse

The protection of freedom of expression should not prevent legitimate action against genuine threats, harassment, cybercrime, incitement to violence, unlawful disclosure of personal information and defamatory publications.

7. Corporate Responsibility

Social media companies operating in Nigeria should establish transparent content-moderation policies and accessible complaint and appeal mechanisms. Decisions to suspend accounts or remove content should be communicated clearly to affected users.

8. Greater Transparency in Government-Technology Agreements

Where government enters into agreements with social media companies that may affect the rights of citizens, there should be sufficient transparency to permit public scrutiny, subject to legitimate and lawful confidentiality requirements.

9. Digital Rights Education

Citizens should be educated about both their rights and responsibilities online. Human rights advocacy should be encouraged, but citizens should also understand the legal consequences of threats, harassment, fraud, defamation and unlawful disclosure of personal information.

10. Strengthening Judicial and Law-Enforcement Capacity

Judges, lawyers, police officers and other relevant officials require continuous training in cybercrime, digital evidence, data protection, online harassment, electronic communications and international digital rights standards.

Conclusion

Social media in Nigeria represents both an opportunity and a challenge for human rights protection. It has transformed ordinary citizens into participants in public discourse and has provided activists, journalists and civil society organisations with powerful tools for mobilisation, documentation and accountability. The EndSARS movement and the litigation surrounding the suspension of Twitter demonstrate the importance of digital platforms to contemporary freedom of expression and access to information. At the same time, social media can be abused for harassment, cybercrime, misinformation, defamation and privacy violations. The existence of constitutional rights therefore does not mean that every online activity is lawful. The principal challenge for Nigeria is to maintain a proper balance between liberty and responsibility. The Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and the developing judicial decisions on online expression represent important parts of this legal framework. However, legislation alone will not resolve the problem. Law enforcement authorities must apply the law fairly, courts must protect constitutional rights, technology companies must respect users’ rights, and citizens must use digital platforms responsibly. Ultimately, social media should remain a space through which Nigerians can speak, organise, educate, criticise public institutions and advocate for human rights. Regulation should address genuine harm without turning the digital environment into a mechanism for suppressing legitimate expression. The future of digital human rights in Nigeria will therefore depend not merely on the existence of laws, but on how those laws are interpreted and enforced in accordance with constitutionalism, rule of law and respect for human dignity.

Footnotes

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 39(1).
2. ibid, s 37.
3. ibid, s 40.
4. ibid, s 45.
5. SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Judgment delivered 14 July 2022), concerning the suspension of Twitter in Nigeria.
6. Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiatives v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECOWAS Court of Justice, ECW/CCJ/APP/53/2018; ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/20, 10 July 2020); see also the subsequent ECOWAS jurisprudence concerning section 24 of the Cybercrime Act.
7. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024, s 5, amending s 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
8. ibid.
9. Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, s 1.
10. ibid, s 2.
11. ibid, s 3(2)(d).
12. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024, including amendments concerning subscriber information, traffic data and cybersecurity obligations.
13. SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Judgment delivered 14 July 2022).
14. SERAP v Minister of Information and Culture & Anor, Suit No FHC/L/CS/238/2022, Federal High Court, Lagos, judgment delivered 28 May 2024.
15. Alex Otti v Eze Chikamnayo, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, ruling delivered 16 October 2025, permitting substituted service through Facebook and WhatsApp.
16. See, for example, Natasha H. Akpoti-Uduaghan v Sandra C. Duru & Meta Platforms Inc, Suit No FCT/HC/CV/229/2025, Federal High Court, Abuja, interlocutory ruling delivered January 2026.
17. National Assembly, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 11 July 2024, concerning protection of journalists and the use of cyberstalking provisions under the Cybercrimes Act.
18. United Nations Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (2011).
19. Recent Nigerian proceedings involving Meta Platforms and alleged defamatory content published through Facebook.
20. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 19; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981, art 9.
21. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
22. SERAP v Minister of Information and Culture & Anor, Suit No FHC/L/CS/238/2022, Federal High Court, Lagos, judgment delivered 28 May 2024.

Job Joseph, DL, LL.B(Hons), ABU Zaria