ONLINE DEFAMATION: WHEN THE VIRUS GOES VIRAL
Oluwabusayo Ifonlaja*
* Oluwabusayo Ifonlaja LL.B (Hons); BL (In View); ACArb; Email: [email protected]; Tel:
+234 8064684363
ABSTRACT
The adage goes, "where one man's rights stop; another's rights begin." It is on this basis that the
law protects the right to reputation through the tort and criminalization of defamation. However,
we are at the age where gist and rumours spread like wildfire, outpacing the slow wisdom of
old sayings. The internet buzzes with countless voices sharing their thoughts, both true and
untrue. We find ourselves in times where viral steals the spotlight from the actual truth. It is no
surprise that online defamation allegations and litigations in Nigeria and globally have vastly
increased. This paper aimed to critically identify the legislative framework for online defamation
in Nigeria while highlighting the challenges surrounding online defamation and
recommendations to eliminate the virus of online defamation, among other matters. The
paper established that the laws and principles applicable to traditional defamation have
been vastly applied to online defamation cases creating a gap in practicability. It
recommends a specific law particular to online defamation. The research methodology
employed for this paper is doctrinal.
Keywords: Online, defamation, Nigeria, internet, social media, legal framework, jurisdiction,
Internet Service Providers.
1|Page
1.0 Introduction
Gospel singer Mercy Chinwo shared a photo of her kid on their family's Facebook page on March
29, 2024, to honour God's kindness for giving them a child. The couple posted the picture on
social media and right away, it was implied in a Facebook comment that Mercy Chinwo had an
extra-marital affair,1 specifically that the son was that of another gospel singer, Nathaniel Bassey.
As expected, this attracted other defamatory publications taking a toll on their hard-earned
reputation. It was reported that on the 3rd of April 2024, a Chief Magistrate Court in Wuse Zone 2
Abuja, summoned 5 social media users for the alleged criminal defamation of Mercy Chinwo. A
criminal complaint dated 2nd April 2024 had earlier been filed by Blessed Uzochkwa, Mercy
Chinwo’s husband to the said court. This is in addition to the petition made to the Inspector General
of Police by Nathaniel Bassey on the subject.2
Across the digital divide, Drake filed a federal defamation lawsuit on January 25, 2025, against
Kendrick Lamar’s record label, Universal Music Group (UMG). The suit contains damning
allegations including portraying Drake as a pedophile. This came after the alleged defamatory diss
track, “Not Like Us”, bagged five (5) Grammy awards.
Expectedly, social media has revolutionized interaction in this digital age. A simple text or post
within the confines of our homes can spread fast and wide to the ends of the earth. Nevertheless,
the perks of social media or the internet come hand in hand with a fair share of woes. Online
defamation allegations in Nigeria and globally have become increasingly commonplace. This
might be a result of the social media frenzy and the relative ease of bloggers, content creators and
users generally to post information, verified or unverified. Today, defamation has transcended
beyond word of mouth or print media, having a far-reaching impact on the lives of victims. The
internet never forgets. Thus, there is a need for all internet users to adhere to the golden rule of
‘netiquette.’3
1
Olisa Agbakoba Legal and others, ‘Learn The Rules Of Online Engagement: Introduction To Defamation, Privacy,
And Cyberbullying’ (Mondaq, 6 May 2024) <https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/libel-defamation/1459274/learn-the-
rules-of-online-engagement-introduction-to-defamation-privacy-and-cyberbullying> accessed 22 February 2025
2
Deborah Sanusi, ‘Court Summons Five for Defaming Mercy Chinwo, Husband’ (Punch Newspapers, 4 April 2024)
<https://punchng.com/court-summons-five-for-defaming-mercy-chinwo-husband/> accessed 23 February 2025.
3
Good internet manners and culture.
2|Page
2.0 Defamation
A defamatory statement can seep into the crevasses of the subconscious and lurk
there ever ready to spring forth and spread its cancerous evil. The unfortunate
impression left by a libel may last a lifetime. Seldom does the defamed person
have the opportunity of replying and correcting the record in a manner that will
truly remedy the situation.4
A man’s reputation is like a priceless gem; once tarnished, it is difficult to restore its original
brilliance. Thus, defamation, an expression that damages the reputation of another person, attracts
liability both as a tort and a crime.
In C.S.S. & D.F. Ltd. v. Schlumberger (Nig.) Ltd.,5 the Supreme Court defined defamation as
follows:
Defamation, as a tort, whether as libel or slander, consists of the publication to
a third person or persons of any false word or matter which tend: to lower the
person defamed in the estimation of (a) right thinking members of society
generally; or to expose him to hatred, contempt, opprobrium or (b) ridicule; or
to cut him off from society or cause other persons to (b) shun or avoid him; or to
discredit him or injure his reputation in his office, (c) trade or profession; or (e)
to injure his financial credit.
The purpose of the law of defamation is to protect the good reputation of a person from being
damaged by another person. The basis of the law of defamation is that every person has the right
to the protection of his good name and the good opinion and estimation the public holds of him.6
However, ex nihilo nihil fit,7 where a person has no good reputation in respect of the alleged
statement, the law has nothing to protect.8 Defamation appears in two forms – libel and slander.
Slander consists of a false and defamatory statement9 made or conveyed by spoken words, looks,
signs, and gestures or in some other non-permanent form. Libel, on the other hand, is required to
be in some permanent form. To be defamatory, the libel or slander must have been published of
and concerning the claimant, to a person other than the claimant, without lawful justification or
excuse.10
4
The Supreme Court of Canada in Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) S.C.R 1130, per Justice Cory.
5
(2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1642) 238 SC.
6
Din v. African Newspapers Ltd (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.139) 392 SC
7
Latin word for “nothing is created from nothing.”
8
Ibid (n 6).
9
Of a transient nature.
10
C.S.S. & D.F. Ltd. v. Schlumberger (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1642) 238 SC (Pp. 253-254, paras. G-A).
3|Page
To succeed against a defendant in an action for defamation, there are six co-terminus which the
claimant has to prove to wit: (a) publication of the offending words; (b) that the words complained
of refer to the plaintiff; (c) that the words are defamatory of the plaintiff; (d) that the words were
published to third parties; (e) that the words were false or lack accuracy; and (f) that there are no
justifiable legal grounds for the publication of the words.11 However, in slanders, which are
ordinarily not actionable per se,12 the claimant is required to show damage suffered.13
Nevertheless, where the defendant can prove any of the defences of justification, fair comment,
privilege, consent, etc., he or she may escape liability.14It should be noted that it is not enough for
the claimant to prove the statement was defamatory. The burden of proof lies on him to show that
the statement is false. The presumption of falsity which allows for the court to automatically
presume that a statement is false once it is shown to be defamatory has been recently annulled by
the Supreme Court.15
3.0 Criminal Defamation
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.16 However, it took the popular trial of Dele Farotimi17 for
many to realize that defamation attracts criminal liability. The Criminal Code Act and the Penal
Code Act respectively criminalize defamation. By the provisions of the Criminal Code Act,
“Defamatory matter is matter likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to
hatred, contempt or ridicule or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by an injury
to his reputation.”18 The Act further proscribes defamation as a misdemeanor, attracting
imprisonment of one year and when published with knowledge of its falsity, imprisonment of two
years.19
11
Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd. (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 449 SC (P. 469, paras. D-F).
12
Latin meaning by itself.
13
Adeyemo v. Akintola (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 390 CA; Kuku v. Olushoga (1962) 1 All NLR 625
14
Ese Malemi, Law of Tort (2nd Edition, Princeton Publishing Co 2017).
15
Abalaka v. Akinsete (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1901) 343 Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at pages 374-375,paras. F-H:
16
Cedar Stationeries Ltd. v. IBWA Ltd. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 690) 338 CA (P. 350, paras. D-E)
17
Mohammed Taoheed, ‘Charges Police Filed against Dele Farotimi over Alleged Defamation of Afe Babalola’
(Premium Times Nigeria, 5 December 2024) <https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/759357-download-
charges-police-filed-against-dele-farotimi-over-alleged-defamation-of-afe-babalola.html> accessed 20 February
2025.
18
Section 373 Criminal Code Act 2004.
19
Section 375 Criminal Code Act 2004.
4|Page
Similar provisions are contained in the Penal Code Act with few differences.20 Under the Criminal
Code Act, it is not a requirement that the publication is made to a third party for it to be actionable
– it is sufficient when it is read only by the person defamed.21 The courts have laid down the
essential elements for the proof of criminal defamation beyond reasonable doubt.22
Crimes are generally residual matters23 that are within the prerogative of the States to legislate.
Besides, in Lagos, Edo, and Ekiti State where criminal defamation has been decriminalized,
defamation is an offence by the provision of their respective penal laws. This raises the question
of the jurisdictional applicability of the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code. Despite defamation
being decriminalized under the Criminal Law of Ekiti State,24 Dele Farotimi was charged under
the Criminal Code Act.25
4.0 Online Defamation
Sharing information about individuals, companies, and organizations is now simpler than ever,
thanks to the internet, which has completely revolutionized communication. Rapid information
dissemination also has drawbacks, such as the ease with which destructive and inaccurate material
can proliferate online. This can hurt the articles' subjects' reputations, emotions, and finances for
years to come.26
Generally, the laws governing traditional defamation apply mutatis mutandis27 to online
defamation. There is no special jurisprudence for online publications. In Stanbic IBTC Bank’s case
20
Section 391 – 395 Penal Code Act LFN 2004.
21
Section 373 Criminal Code Act 2004.
22
Iwundu v. State (2024) LPELR-61730(CA); Aviomoh v. Commissioner of Police (2022) 4 NWLR (pt. 1819) 69 SC.
23
Items not listed in the Exclusive and Concurrent list as contained in the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended.
24
No. 12 of 2021.
25
Until recently, with the amendment of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment ) Act, 2024 ,
defamation was criminalized as cyberstalking. However, the provision was criticized for being in contravention of the
fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of expression entrenched in the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter
on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004. The Ecowas Community Court of Justice in
the cases of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative v. Federal Republic of Nigeria Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/53/18
(Judgement No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/20). and Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project v the Federal
Republic of Nigeria Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19 (Judgement No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/12/21) gave the directive for the
amendment.
26
Buckingham LLC Doolittle & Burroughs, ‘What Is Online Defamation?’ (Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs,
LLC, 18 July 2023) <https://www.bdblaw.com/what-is-online-defamation/> accessed 21 February 2025.
27
Meaning that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered, when necessary.
5|Page
v. Longterm Global Capital Ltd & Ors,28 the Court of Appeal affirmed that electronic
dissemination of information qualifies as publication in today’s digital age. Thus, online
defamation is simply defamation done through online platforms. “Online” means “connected to,
served by, or available through a system especially a computer or telecommunications system such
as the Internet.”29
On the implication of publishing defamatory matter online, the Court of Appeal in Daily Times
Nig. Plc v. Arum30 held:
A publication made online carries far-reaching implications. A major feature of
texts, pictures, and every material placed on the Internet is universal
accessibility with minimal protocols anywhere and everywhere there is access to
the Internet. Publishing through the Internet or making a publication online
implies a desire to make the materials so published available globally.
Not surprisingly, online defamation is also marked by novel issues of anonymity where defamatory
statements are made by persons taking refuge in their digital bubbles. Additionally, with the readily
available options of ‘share’, ‘retweet’, and ‘repost’ available on social media platforms, the
republication of defamatory statements flows as freely as rice and garri shared among the hungry
multitude during election season. Unlike traditional defamation where each publication in itself
constitutes a cause of action,31 the concept of the single publication rule32 has been widely adopted
in online defamation cases.33
While online defamation may appear relatively new, the essential elements to prove online
defamation are materially the same under the conventional form of defamation. Thus, the earlier
identified six co-terminus must be established.34
28
Stanbic IBTC Bank v. Longterm Global Capital Ltd & Ors (2021) LPELR-55610(CA).
29
Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 CA (P. 575, paras. C-D).
30
(2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 CA (P. 575, paras. C-E).
31
Appi-Agama v. George N.D. (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 221 CA (P. 233, para. H) 5.; Offoboche v. Ogoja L.G. (2001)
16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 458 SC.
32
A rule in the law of libel that treats an edition of a print source (as a magazine) as one publication giving rise to one
cause of action for libel regardless of how many copies were printed and where they were distributed (Merriam-
Webster).
33
However, in Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Association (2005) BCCA 395 (Can LIl), the Court in
British Columbia refused to adopt the single publication rule.
34
Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd. (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 449 SC ((P. 469, paras. D-F).
6|Page
4.1 Legal Framework for Online Defamation
Every person has the right to the protection of his good name and the good opinion and estimation
the public holds of him. This is protected by several legislation in Nigeria, the grund-norm
inclusive. These laws include:
a. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended:
The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression. However, this right like a bird in
flight must avoid the stormy skies of excess. These limitations are contained in Sections 39(3) and
45(1) of the Constitution, particularly to protect the rights and freedom of other persons. The right
to reputation is also rooted in the right to dignity of a human person as a defamatory statement is
capable of diminishing one’s dignity by harming one’s reputation.
b. The Criminal Code and Penal Code:
The Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Act proscribe defamation as an offence attracting
imprisonment. This is also contained in the criminal laws of respective states.35
c. Case Laws:
While there are a few court cases on online defamation,36 there are a lot of pronouncements on
traditional defamation37 which largely apply to online defamation.
4.2 Jurisdictional Issues on Online Defamation
Online or Internet based publications by their nature are globally accessible but
do not confer jurisdiction globally merely on the basis of mere virtual existence.
Passive Internet activity is also not a basis for assumption of jurisdiction. Further,
because the cause of action for libel is complete only on publication, the cause of
action in respect of a publication online or which is internet based is not complete
until the online or internet based publication has been accessed or downloaded
by a third party.38
35
Section 371 of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State provides that: “whoever by words either spoken or reproduced
by mechanical or electronic means or by means of Internet communication intended to be read or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning a person intending to harm or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, has defamed that person and is guilty
of an offence.”
36
The case of Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 CA is apposite.
37
These include pronouncements both on defamation as a tort and criminal defamation.
38
Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 CA.
7|Page
Jurisdiction is an important issue. It is the live-wire of the suit and if a suit is heard by a court in
the absence of jurisdiction, it amounts to embarking on a futile exercise no matter how well it is
decided.39 Thus, it is important that where there is alleged defamation, the matter is brought before
the appropriate court. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide a case or issue a decree. It is
the authority the court has to decide matters before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in
a formal way for its decision.40
Unlike traditional defamation, the digital world knows no borders. Like the ocean, it flows freely
between all shores. A simple text from the hidden corners of a rural region in Nigeria can be
accessible in a random region in New Zealand. In Nigeria, there is the independence of each High
Court’s territorial jurisdiction over disputes on causes of action arising in a State.41 Otherwise, the
action will be liable to be struck out.42 By the various Rules of Court of respective States, the court
with jurisdiction is where the defendant resides or carries on business.43 However, due to the
ubiquitous nature of the internet, this provision only applies to traditional defamation.
The Nigerian courts have adopted a broad approach in determining the jurisdiction for online
defamation. In Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum,44 the Court of Appeal held:
An online publication is meant for a global audience and readership, and an
aggrieved victim of the publication can initiate an action wherever the offending
publication is consummated, downloaded and/or retrieved, particularly, where
the victim of the publication was targeted, profiled, exposed and/or attacked. A
blogger or publisher should not evade or try to defy any opportunity offered him
to substantiate, prove, and/or justify his claims in the publication he offloaded
into Internet when challenged to do so, anywhere it is read.
Therefore, territorial jurisdiction is not limited to the place of actual defamation but also, wherever
the online publication is accessed or downloaded.45 While this broad approach is likewise adopted
39
Okafor v. Ukadike (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122) 259 CA (P.273, para. G).
40
Dariye v. F.R.N. (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1467) 325 SC (P. 352, paras. A-C).
41
Section 272 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
42
Dairo v. UBN (2007) LPELR-913(SC)
43
Order 3 Rule 4(1) High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018; Order 4 Rule 1
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
44
Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 CA (P. 580, paras. E-F).
45
This is also as decided in the cases of Adegunwa v Adepoju & Ors (2024) LPELR-61827(CA) and MTN (Nig)
Communications Ltd v Corporate Communications Inv. Ltd (2019) LPELR-47061(SC).
8|Page
in England,46 India,47 and Australia,48 the United States appears to have adopted a different
approach. The claimant is required to demonstrate that the publication specifically targeted the
forum in which the claim is brought.49
Nevertheless, each approach comes with its challenges, and as such Nigeria has to deal with issues
of forum shopping, and multiplicity of actions, to mention a few.
4.3 The Liability of Internet Service Providers?
Are Internet Service Providers mere conduit pipes for online defamatory publications or do they
share the reins of liability? The term, “Internet Service Provider (ISP)” is not explicitly defined
under Nigerian laws, however, related terms such as “service provider” and “network service
provider”, etc. can be found in certain legislations such as the Nigerian Communications Act.50
An Internet Service Provider is “a company that provides individuals and organizations access to
the internet and other related services.”51 Due to their easy identification in the online space,
particularly considering user anonymity, jurisdictional issues brought on by the global nature of
the internet, and their seeming financial stability and ability to bear the weight of monetary
compensation or damages claimed, ISPs make an extremely alluring defendant.52
In Nigeria, Internet Service Providers are protected by the statute and the defence of innocent
dissemination,53 however, do not enjoy absolute immunity. The National Communication
Commission’s Guidelines54 for the Provision of Internet Service provides as follows:
46
Berezovsky v. Michaels [2000] UKHL 25.
47
SMC Pneumatics v. Jogesh Kwatra (Suit No. 1279/2001, District Court of Delhi).
48
Gutnick v. Dow Jones [2002] HCA 56.
49
Templars, ‘Navigating Online Defamation: Jurisdictional Challenges in a Borderless World’ (TEMPLARS
ThoughtLab, 13 December 2024) <https://www.templars-law.com/app/uploads/2024/12/Jurisdictional-Challenges-
in-a-Borderless-World.pdf> accessed 22 February 2025.
50
Section 157 Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
51
Alexander Gillis, ‘What Is an Internet Service Provider (ISP)?’ (TechTarget, February 2022)
<https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ISP-Internet-service-provider> accessed 22 February 2025.
52
Ekaobong Thomas, ‘Examining the Liability of Internet Service Providers in Online Defamation Cases in Nigeria’
(2024) 8(2) African Journal of Law and Human Rights 151.
53
Innocent dissemination is the distribution or dissemination of a defamatory article without knowing of the
defamatory comment. The law takes a lenient view of subsidiary distributors because their role is merely subsidiary.
Subsidiary distributors are usually not liable for defamation provided the defendant distributor can show a lack of
knowledge of the defamation and the reason for same not being due to negligence on his part.
54
The Guidelines is made pursuant to Section 70(2) Nigerian Communications Act 2023.
9|Page
“ISPs shall not be liable for the storage of information at the request of any user
of the service if the ISP:
(i) does not modify the information;
(ii) does not interfere with any conditions of access applicable to the
information;
(iii) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology to obtain data
on the use of the information;
(iv) does not have knowledge of illegal activity related to the
information; and
(v) acts without delay to remove or disable access to the information
on
(vi) receipt of any takedown notice…”55
By the above provision, an internet intermediary is not considered a publisher of content and is not
responsible for the content where it is a technical host or merely a passive information medium; it
was neither the author of the publication nor the content; it was unaware that the content was
defamatory and; its ignorance was not the consequence of negligence.56 Thus, ISPs do not enjoy
absolute immunity in defamation cases. They are subject to liability for defamation by third parties
if they are notified of harmful online content but fail to remove the posting promptly.57 In contrast
to what is obtained in the United States,58 the United Kingdom adopts a similar stance to Nigeria.59
4.4 Remedies and Defences
The impact of online defamation can be broad-sweeping and devastating. The repercussions of a
simple, yet heavy post may remain etched in stone forever. The financial, emotional, and
psychological consequences of online defamation cannot be overemphasized. The usual remedies
that exist for online defamation, just as it is for traditional defamation include: the award of
55
Part III, Paragraph 11(c) NCC Guidelines for the Provision of Internet Service.
56
Olisa Agbakoba Legal and others, ‘Learn The Rules Of Online Engagement: Introduction To Defamation, Privacy,
And Cyberbullying’ (Mondaq, 6 May 2024) <https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/libel-defamation/1459274/learn-the-
rules-of-online-engagement-introduction-to-defamation-privacy-and-cyberbullying> accessed 22 February 2025;
Section 12(2)(b) Defamation Law of Lagos State 2015 supports this provision.
57
Nicholas Okoye v Ladun Liadi & 2 others Suit No. LD/17101/2022 (Unreported).
58
The Communication’s Decency Act (‘CDA’) 1996 excludes ISPs from liability even if they are on notice of the
defamatory content.
59
Section 1 of the Defamation Act of the United Kingdom, 1996.
10 | P a g e
damages,60 injunction, seizure, and destruction of the defamatory matter, or article; and offer of
amends, accord and satisfaction, retraction and apology, etc.61
The primary aim of the award of damages is to compensate or place the claimant in a good position
so far as money can do it. Offer of amends and public apology are means of settlement of the
matter. It involves the publication of a suitable retraction or correction of the defamatory
publication accompanied by an apology.62
The courts can also issue injunctive reliefs that prevent the defamatory comment from being
published or from being continued to be published until the defamation substantive case is
resolved. However, it is the customary approach of the court to tread with caution in giving
injunctive reliefs. Until the court has seen the article or obtained information about the
circumstances surrounding its publishing, it is nearly impossible to declare it defamatory.
Therefore, it is implied that granting an injunction in libel cases at the interlocutory stage suggests
that, even before hearing the defence, the court would have assumed that the purported publication
was defamatory. This shows the importance the court places on free speech and the court not
counting the chickens before they hatch or putting the car before the horse.63
Nevertheless, the defences to a claim of online defamation are many and include justification or
truth,64 innocent dissemination,65 offer of amends,66 fair comment,67 privilege,68 consent,69 death
of the plaintiff or defendant,70 res judicata,71 accord and satisfaction;72 and statute of limitation.73
60
Damages could be general, exemplary or aggravated damages.
61
Online defamation as a criminal liability attracts imprisonment.
62
Malemi (n 14).
63
Registered Trustees of AMORC v. Awoniyi (1991) 13 NWLR (Pt. 178) 245.
64
This means that that the information that was published is true in substance and thus justified.
65
Applies to subsidiary distributors without knowledge of the defamatory publication and such lack of knowledge is
not due to negligence on his part.
66
Where amends have been made by a defendant, and have been accepted for a defamation, the claimant may not turn
around again to sue for defamation.
67
That the alleged defamatory matter is based on a fair observation or opinion on a matter of public interest.
68
This could be absolute or qualified privilege.
69
Volenti non fit injuria – To a willing person, no injury is done.
70
Actio personalis moritur persona – A personal right of action dies with the person who has it.
71
This is estoppel from filing a fresh suit on a matter that has already being judicially decided.
72
Terms of settlement have been reached by the parties.
73
This is dependent on the limitation laws of various states. The statute of limitation for torts is usually 3 years.
11 | P a g e
5.0 Conclusion
Today, many hide under the guise of free speech to make derogatory and defamatory comments
on social media. Little or no effort is made to verify this information which leads to the further
publication of defamatory comments, reposts, or whatever nomenclature. However, if what is
deemed online defamation is overstretched, this could amount to a breach of the constitutional
right of freedom of expression or an avenue for incessant arrests by the Police. While the right to
free speech is not inferior, there is a compelling need to balance this right with the right of others
to their reputation. This has never been more challenging than it is in the digital age.
Despite the letters of the law and the sound reasoning of the courts, there is a need for distinct and
more peculiar legislation dedicated to online defamation. The legislation should comprehensively
address key aspects of online defamation, including jurisdiction, elements of the offence, remedies,
defences, liability for republication, Internet Service Provider liability, and other relevant issues.
While the principles of traditional defamation have been applied to online defamation cases, it is
as broad as daylight that these letters are far too faint to fill the pages of the grand book of the
issues around online defamation. Nevertheless, it behooves every one of us to join hands to self-
regulate the fair usage of the internet for a better and sane society.
12 | P a g e
