Social Media Trials VS. Due Process In Nigerian Law: The Mirabel Case -By Oluwaleye Adedoyin Grace

INTRODUCTION

Over the past five days, the Nigerian digital space has been saturated with discussions surrounding the “Mirabel” sexual assault allegation. What began as an emotional social media disclosure quickly escalated into a national controversy, generating widespread outrage, sympathy, and public agitation. Celebrities, influencers, and advocacy groups joined the conversation, amplifying calls for justice and accountability.

However, as the narrative evolved, the alleged victim reportedly recanted her initial claims, triggering yet another wave of public reaction. The shift in position has intensified debate across the country, raising complex questions about credibility, the legal consequences of false allegations, the role of social media in criminal accusations, and the broader impact such incidents have on genuine survivors of sexual violence in Nigeria.

Mirabel – who presented a false accusation of rape

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS IF THE ALLEGATION WAS FALSE

From a legal perspective, one unavoidable question arises: what if the allegation was false as she claimed? If the complainant was not raped but deliberately fabricated the claim, what are the legal consequences under Nigerian law?

Sexual assault, particularly rape, is widely acknowledged as one of the most difficult offences to prove in criminal law. It often occurs in private, with little or no direct witnesses, leaving courts to rely heavily on medical evidence, surrounding circumstances, and the credibility of testimony. Because of its gravity and its traumatic impact on victims, the law prescribes severe penalties for offenders.

Under the Criminal Code Act, which applies in Southern Nigeria, rape is provided for under Section 357, while Section 358 prescribes punishment. A person convicted of rape is liable to imprisonment for life.

Similarly, under the Penal Code Act, applicable in Northern Nigeria, rape is addressed under Section 282, and punishment is prescribed under Section 283, which provides for imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and may also include a fine.

More recently, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (VAPP Act) expanded and modernized the definition of rape. Section 1 of the Act provides that a person convicted of rape is liable to life imprisonment, except in cases involving a child, where stricter consequences may apply. The Act also recognises broader forms of sexual violence beyond penile penetration, thereby strengthening protection for victims.

Given the severity of punishment attached to rape, the question becomes even more significant: if an individual falsely alleges rape, should the law impose a punishment equivalent to that faced by a convicted rapist?

While the emotional impulse to demand equal punishment may be understandable, criminal law operates on principles, not emotion. The offence of rape is a violent invasion of bodily integrity and human dignity. Conversely, falsely alleging rape, though deeply harmful, constitutes a different category of offence under the law.

Where a person knowingly makes a false report to the police, liability may arise under provisions relating to false information, perversion of justice, or defamation, depending on the circumstances. For instance, Section 125 of the Criminal Code criminalizes knowingly giving false information to a public officer with intent to mislead. Such offences, however, carry penalties distinct from those imposed for rape itself.

Therefore, the legal system must balance two critical interests:

• Protecting genuine victims of sexual violence; and
• Preventing and sanctioning malicious or false accusations that undermine justice.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS UNDER NIGERIAN LAW

A critical question arises: does Nigerian law specifically punish individuals who falsely accuse others of rape?

While there is no offence expressly titled “false rape allegation,” existing criminal provisions address such conduct under broader categories of false reporting and malicious prosecution.

Under the Criminal Code Act, Section 125 provides that any person who knowingly gives false information to a public officer with intent to mislead is guilty of an offence. The punishment may include imprisonment. Where a false rape allegation is formally reported to the police, and it is established that the complainant knowingly fabricated the claim, this provision may apply.

Similarly, under the Penal Code Act, Section 140 criminalizes giving false information to a public servant, knowing or believing it to be false. The offender may face imprisonment, fine, or both.

In addition, depending on the circumstances, civil liability may arise under the law of defamation, particularly where the allegation was published publicly and caused reputational damage.

Thus, Nigerian law does provide mechanisms for addressing deliberate false accusations, even though they are not codified under a rape-specific provision.

THE SOCIETAL HARM OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS

The argument for imposing strict consequences on individuals who deliberately fabricate rape allegations is rooted not merely in retribution, but in the broader interest of justice and social protection.

Where a person knowingly makes a false accusation of rape, the damage extends beyond the individual falsely accused. Such conduct may:

1. Destroy reputations irreversibly: An allegation of rape carries profound social stigma. Even before conviction, the accused may suffer public condemnation, loss of employment, social isolation, and psychological trauma. In the age of social media, reputational damage is often immediate and permanent.

2. Undermine confidence in genuine victims: Perhaps more troubling is the ripple effect. False allegations may contribute to skepticism when real survivors come forward. Sexual violence is already one of the most underreported crimes due to fear, shame, and disbelief. When fabricated claims surface, they risk reinforcing harmful narratives that victims “lie” or “exaggerate,” thereby discouraging legitimate complaints.

3. Weaponized a protective legal framework: Laws against rape and sexual violence exist to protect bodily autonomy and human dignity. When these laws are manipulated maliciously, the legal system itself becomes a tool of oppression rather than protection.

4. Waste judicial and investigative resources: Law enforcement agencies and courts devote substantial time and resources to investigating sexual assault allegations. A knowingly false claim diverts these resources from genuine victims who require urgent attention.

5. Cause psychological trauma to the accused: Beyond legal consequences, the emotional toll on a falsely accused person can be devastating. Public humiliation, anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation are documented consequences in some cases of wrongful accusation.

It is from this perspective that some argue for severe punishment for intentional false allegations; not as a means of equating the offence with rape itself, but as a deterrent against the abuse of a legal mechanism designed to protect vulnerable persons.

However, caution is essential. The law must distinguish between:

• A maliciously fabricated allegation, and
• A complaint that fails due to insufficient evidence.

The mere inability to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt does not automatically mean the allegation was false. Criminal justice systems operate on the principle that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and many genuine cases fail due to evidentiary limitations rather than dishonesty.

THE BROADER SOCIAL RISK WHEN TRUTH IS DOUBTED

When a high-profile allegation is later withdrawn or disproved, it may produce unintended societal consequences:

1. Erosion of Public Trust: Public sympathy can quickly turn into skepticism. Future complainants may face harsher scrutiny, even where their claims are genuine.

2. Chilling Effect on Victims: Sexual violence is significantly underreported. Many victims already fear disbelief, stigma, or retaliation. A controversial case may deepen that fear, discouraging reporting.

3. Impunity for Actual Offenders: If society begins to approach rape allegations with automatic suspicion, genuine perpetrators may exploit that doubt. The danger is not only reputational; it is structural. A culture of disbelief can embolden offenders.

4. Endangerment of Women and Vulnerable Persons: Where victims lose confidence in the justice system, reporting declines. When reporting declines, accountability weakens. When accountability weakens, vulnerability increases.

It is therefore important to stress that one controversial case must not become a justification for dismissing future complaints. Justice demands individual assessment, not collective suspicion.

THE ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY: WHAT IF THE RETRACTION WAS INDUCED BY THREATS?

Beyond the question of false allegations lies another equally significant inquiry: what if the retraction itself was not voluntary?

In criminal justice, a recantation does not automatically extinguish suspicion. Where a complainant initially makes a grave allegation and subsequently withdraws it, the law does not simply close its eyes and declare the matter resolved. Rather, such a development may signal the need for deeper investigation.

According to public accounts, the alleged perpetrator was described as a person of influence or high social standing who allegedly boasted that he would evade consequences regardless of the accusation. If such assertions were indeed made, they introduce a troubling dimension — the possibility of intimidation or coercion.

In law, threats, intimidation, coercion, and blackmail are not trivial matters. They may amount to separate criminal offences. Under the Criminal Code Act, criminal intimidation and threats are punishable offences. Likewise, the Penal Code Act criminalizes intentional insult, intimidation, and threats intended to cause alarm or compel a person to act or refrain from acting in a particular way.

If a complainant retracts an allegation due to threats to personal safety, pressure from influential individuals, fear of reputational destruction, financial inducement, or coercion directed at family members, then the retraction cannot be treated as conclusive proof that the original complaint was false.

The criminal justice system recognises that victims of sexual offences are particularly vulnerable to intimidation. In some instances, the power imbalance between the accused and the complainant may discourage sustained pursuit of justice. Therefore, where a serious allegation is followed by a sudden recantation, it may be prudent for investigators to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances rather than immediately terminate proceedings.

This does not imply that the initial allegation was true. Nor does it suggest that the retraction was necessarily coerced. Rather, it underscores the importance of approaching such cases with legal objectivity rather than emotional reaction.

Justice requires neutrality. It demands that we consider both possibilities:

• That an allegation may have been maliciously fabricated; and
• That a retraction may have been induced by fear or pressure.

To adopt either conclusion without thorough investigation would be premature.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VS. TRIAL BY SOCIAL MEDIA

One of the most troubling dimensions of the controversy is the speed with which public opinion crystallized online. Within hours of the allegation, social media platforms transformed into informal courtrooms, complete with judges, juries, and executioners.

Yet, under Nigerian law, every person accused of a criminal offence is constitutionally presumed innocent until proven guilty according to Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

This principle is not a technicality. It is the bedrock of criminal justice. It ensures that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

However, social media operates by a different logic. It thrives on immediacy, emotional reaction, and virality. Allegations are amplified within minutes; reputations are destroyed before investigations begin. Public sentiment often precedes evidence.

This phenomenon commonly referred to as “trial by social media” this presents several dangers such as:

• Prejudgment Without Evidence: Online audiences frequently form conclusions based solely on initial narratives, without access to investigative findings. Thus weighing emotions with justice
• Irreversible Reputational Damage: Even where allegations are later disproved or withdrawn, digital footprints remain. Screenshots circulate indefinitely. The stigma persists.
• Pressure on Investigative Authorities: Law enforcement agencies may face intense public pressure to act swiftly in response to online outrage, potentially compromising procedural fairness.

The presumption of innocence does not invalidate empathy for complainants. Nor does it require society to dismiss allegations. Rather, it requires restraint; a recognition that investigation must precede conclusion.

At the same time, caution must not morph into disbelief of all victims. Sexual offences are uniquely sensitive, and dismissive attitudes historically contributed to underreporting. The challenge, therefore, lies in maintaining a delicate equilibrium:

• Protect the dignity of complainants.
• Safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused.
• Allow investigative processes to unfold without public interference.
• Justice cannot be crowdsourced. It must be adjudicated within the framework of law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This raises two fundamental questions:

1. Where the Allegation Was Deliberately Fabricated;

2. Where Retraction Is Linked to Mental Illness.

1. Where the Allegation Was Deliberately Fabricated

If it is established, after proper investigation, that the allegation was knowingly false and maliciously fabricated, the law must respond; but proportionately and carefully.

While rape attracts severe penalties under Nigerian law, false allegations should not automatically attract equivalent punishment. However, deliberate fabrication should trigger clear legal consequences under existing provisions such as Section 125 of the Criminal Code Act (false information to a public officer), and Section 140 of the Penal Code Act (giving false information),

Potential civil liability for defamation where reputational damage is established.

Policy Recommendations:

1. Clearer Statutory Guidelines on Malicious Complaints: The National Assembly may consider enacting explicit provisions addressing maliciously fabricated sexual offence allegations, carefully drafted to avoid discouraging genuine victims.

2. High Evidentiary Threshold Before Prosecution: Prosecution for false reporting should only proceed where there is clear proof of intentional fabrication — not merely failure to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Sanctions Focused on Deterrence, Not Revenge: Penalties may include fines, community service, or custodial terms proportionate to the harm caused, particularly where reputational destruction or public panic resulted.

4. Public Education on Responsible Reporting: Awareness campaigns should emphasize the seriousness of sexual offence allegations and the legal consequences of weaponising such claims.

The objective should not be to silence complainants, but to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

2. Where Retraction Is Linked to Mental Illness

A different legal analysis arises where mental instability is involved.

Nigerian criminal law recognises that mental incapacity may affect criminal responsibility. Under Section 28 of the Criminal Code Act, a person is not criminally responsible for an act if, at the time of doing it, they were in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive them of capacity to understand what they were doing or that it was wrong. Similarly, the Penal Code Act contains provisions recognizing unsoundness of mind as a defence.

Where credible medical evidence establishes that a person fabricated or retracted an allegation due to mental illness, the response of the law should shift from punishment to treatment.

Nigeria’s mental health framework has been modernised under the Mental Health Act, which provides for humane treatment, protection of rights, and structured mental health care.

Policy Recommendations:

1. Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation in High-Profile Recantations: Where serious allegations are dramatically withdrawn, courts or investigators should consider ordering independent psychiatric assessment.

2. Diversion to Treatment Facilities Instead of Immediate Prosecution: Where mental illness is established, the individual may be committed to appropriate psychiatric care rather than subjected to traditional imprisonment.

3. Structured Review Mechanisms: Treatment orders should be subject to periodic judicial review to ensure compliance with both public safety and human rights standards.

4. Protection Against Exploitation of Mental Health Claims: Mental illness must be medically established. It should not become an automatic shield against accountability without professional diagnosis.

III. Broader Institutional Recommendations

To prevent similar controversies in the future:

1. Strengthening Investigative Neutrality: Authorities must resist pressure from social media outrage; whether in favor of the complainant or the accused.

2. Discouraging Trial by Social Media: Public commentary by celebrities and influencers should be responsible and measured, given the presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Constitution.

3. Victim Protection Frameworks: Whether allegations are later confirmed or disproved, complainants should have access to psychological support services.

4. Protection for the Wrongfully Accused: Mechanisms for reputational rehabilitation should be explored where accusations are demonstrably false.

CONCLUSION

The controversy surrounding the Mirabel allegation is not merely a social media spectacle; it is a legal and institutional stress test. It forces us to confront difficult questions about truth, accountability, mental health, due process, and the fragility of public trust.

If an allegation of rape was deliberately fabricated, the law must respond decisively. The justice system cannot be weaponized without consequence. False accusations corrode the integrity of criminal law, endanger genuine victims by fostering skepticism, and inflict profound harm on the wrongly accused.

Conversely, if a retraction was induced by intimidation, coercion, or psychological vulnerability, then abandoning the matter without scrutiny would equally amount to injustice. The law must protect not only the accused but also the vulnerable complainant.

Above all, the Constitution remains clear. By virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That presumption is not suspended by hashtags, celebrity commentary, or public agitation. Justice is not determined by virality.

At the same time, the presumption of innocence must not be manipulated as a shield for impunity. Sexual violence remains a grave societal problem, and victims must not be silenced by fear of disbelief.

The lesson is therefore uncompromising:

• Justice demands investigation, not assumption.
• It demands evidence, not emotion.
• It demands balance, not bias.

Neither outrage nor skepticism should dictate outcomes. Only law should.

In navigating controversies such as this, Nigeria must resist the temptation of digital mob adjudication and instead reaffirm its commitment to due process, proportional accountability, and the protection of human dignity on all sides.

Anything less would betray both victims and the rule of law.

From a legal perspective, I present these observations as my personal analysis and assumption the final determination rests with the police and investigative authorities. Justice demands careful investigation, not social media outrage, and evidence, not emotion.

Oluwaleye Adedoyin Grace writes from Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Kaduna State.

oluwaleyeadedoyingrace2001@gmail.com or 08106289069