nsogbu

Always have evidence before you blow hot

DeepSight:


No Madam, it is not.
Otherwise please cite me the section of the Criminal Code that renders it a crime.

Defamation is actually a dual offence. It can be civil or criminal. It depends. Read citation here.
https://www.abuad.edu.ng/when-false-publications-may-amount-to-criminal-libel/#:~:text=DEFAMATION%20CAN%20BE%20CIVIL%20AND%20CRIMINAL&text=This%20is%20what%20is%20called,%2C%20prosecuted%2C%20convicted%20and%20sentenced.

9jaRealist:







Nigeria keeps descending towards the Dark Ages…SMH

Defamation should be a CIVIL offense, NOT a criminal offense…
Thus, if Mr. Governor alleges defamation, he should file a CIVIL suit for monetary damages.

Unfortunately, in Nigeria, those with power ABUSE the criminal justice system for personal purposes.
>
Edit: I’ve modified this comment to clarify that defamation “should be” a civil, rather than criminal, offense.

It's both civil and criminal

tomju2:
It's both civil and criminal

Point is that it SHOULD be civil…
Just as it has long ago since become in other common law (and frankly almost all civilized) nations.

Crimes are offenses against the State…
The criminal justice systems shouldn’t be deployed (ABUSED in Nigeria) to settle PERSONAL scores/disputes.
>

DennisEche:

The Cybercrime (prohibition, prevention) Act 2015
that became effective on May 15, 2015 also provides as follows: 'any person who knowingly sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or that he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction for a fine of not more than?7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years or to both such fine and imprisonment"
You are the biggest edoit

There is a lot in the interpretation of statutes that you may not be aware of, and I certainly don't know if you are aware of the rules of interpretation of statutes - the literal, mischief and golden rules, to be specific. For me, the golden rule should be useful here because reading these words literarily can lead to absurdity.

In this regard, the words I have highlighted within S 24(b) of the cited Act in the above are cardinal because the person making the said statement will have to be shown to know the statement to be false - and this is cardinal because the person making the statement complained of will simply say that he believed his statement to be true. It is key that you understand the words used above because this is not just a case of showing that the statement made is false, one would also have to show that the maker knew it was false and this is something very hard to to show at all events.

The second point I will make is that the constitutionality of this provision is very debatable and I would like to see a day when that very constitutionality is tested in court, because while I can understand the provisions which talk about threats, pornography, xenophobia and the like, I certainly cannot understand a provision which is drafted so broadly as to include something as ordinary as "causing annoyance, inconvenience . . . insult. . . enmity. . . hatred... ill will. . . or anxiety" to another person. Firstly, this could easily capture almost any piece of ordinary communication among people and even among family members who have any kind of disagreement. Secondly this is too much of a stretch and would appear to me to trample on constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression (guaranteed under Cap 4/ S 39 of the 1999 Constitution) - and therefore is void to the extent of its inconsistency as provided for in S1(3) of the 1999 Constitution .

It is also important to bear in mind that many subjective statements could fall under a broad construction of these words and thus this renders this provision extremely questionable.

Therefore please note that the person alleging a wrong has been done has to show two things -

1. That the information provided is false (If it is true, there is no case at all)
2. That even if it is false, the maker of the statement also knew it was false.

However, I hope you can see that the law cannot so easily be invoked to clamp a person into prison simply for saying something which another person does not like.

In closing, I give you kudos for citing something - many are far too lazy to do so at all. Well done.

DennisEche:

Ogun go kill you for misleading the people
CRIMINAL DEFAMATION UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW
A defamation matter is defined in section 373 of the criminal code as a matter likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his or her profession or trade by injury to his reputation

It is unconstitutional and void on account of being inconsistent with S. 39 of the Constitution.

tomju2:

Defamation is actually a dual offence. It can be civil or criminal. It depends. Read citation here.
https://www.abuad.edu.ng/when-false-publications-may-amount-to-criminal-libel/#:~:text=DEFAMATION%20CAN%20BE%20CIVIL%20AND%20CRIMINAL&text=This%20is%20what%20is%20called,%2C%20prosecuted%2C%20convicted%20and%20sentenced.

My view is that the criminal laws against it are void to the extent of their inconsistency with S.39(1) of the 1999 Constitution:

"Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart ideas and information without interference."

I hope those OBIdient noise makers and propagandist learn.

frankson1:




Well, if you think M16 and MOSSAD etc don't pick people because of their post or what they said, then you are still living in the past.

You're free to say all the nonsense you feel like but when you're called to either defend and or prove it, it becomes an issue

She stated that it was time to "fight dirty", the time has come so she should fight to finish.

M16 will never lower their level to be dealing with matters that are not threat to life. Mossod will never get themselves involved in civil matters here don't come and fool people like you have been fooled.

9jaRealist:


Spoken like a dictator stuck in the Dark Ages…
If President Clinton was a Nigerian, Monica Lewinsky would be in jail.

There is a legal remedy for fake news…
It’s the CIVIL damages provided in the law, not CRUDE ABUSE OF POWER!
>

You are the confused one here, the law that governed us in Nigeria is different from your Woke countries.

Defamation is a criminal offence.

wahalawahala:
Lmao.. same fate awaits Obedients wey like
to cook up lies for their fellow mugus🥴

dss would start picking them up soon. Work is going on underground. Just chill. Many of them will regret the day they were born.

anibirelawal:
You are the confused one here, the law that governed us in Nigeria is different from your Woke countries.

Defamation is a criminal offence.

Confirmation that Nigeria remains mired in the Dark Ages…

Meanwhile, millions of your country’s citizens (perhaps including you yourself) are ‘voting’ with their feet, wallets and even their lives japa-ing to the so-called “woke” nations. SMH
>

Blessing Edet is a victim of negative impact of social media platforms. While social media platforms allow you to publish anything you want, it doesn't exonerate you of legal obligations if what you publish turns out be false. That is why education is lmporran in teaching people about how to support arguments in writing. We have seen real evidence of that here

DeepSight:


There is a lot in the interpretation of statutes that you may not be aware of, and I certainly don't know if you are aware of the rules of interpretation of statutes - the literal, mischief and golden rules, to be specific. For me, the golden rule should be useful here because reading these words literarily can lead to absurdity.

In this regard, the words I have highlighted within S 24(b) of the cited Act in the above are cardinal because the person making the said statement will have to be shown to know the statement to be false - and this is cardinal because the person making the statement complained of will simply say that he believed his statement to be true. It is key that you understand the words used above because this is not just a case of showing that the statement made is false, one would also have to show that the maker knew it was false and this is something very hard to to show at all events.

The second point I will make is that the constitutionality of this provision is very debatable and I would like to see a day when that very constitutionality is tested in court, because while I can understand the provisions which talk about threats, pornography, xenophobia and the like, I certainly cannot understand a provision which is drafted so broadly as to include something as ordinary as "causing annoyance, inconvenience . . . insult. . . enmity. . . hatred... ill will. . . or anxiety" to another person. Firstly, this could easily capture almost any piece of ordinary communication among people and even among family members who have any kind of disagreement. Secondly this is too much of a stretch and would appear to me to trample on constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression (guaranteed under Cap 4/ S 39 of the 1999 Constitution) - and therefore is void to the extent of its inconsistency as provided for in S1(3) of the 1999 Constitution .

It is also important to bear in mind that many subjective statements could fall under a broad construction of these words and thus this renders this provision extremely questionable.

Therefore please note that the person alleging a wrong has been done has to show two things -

1. That the information provided is false (If it is true, there is no case at all)
2. That even if it is false, the maker of the statement also knew it was false.

However, I hope you can see that the law cannot so easily be invoked to clamp a person into prison simply for saying something which another person does not like.

In closing, I give you kudos for citing something - many are far too lazy to do so at all. Well done.

Character assassination is a gravious sin, pray no one does that to you. Some don't come out of it alive

9jaRealist:


Is your life is so empty that you seek meaning from “defeating” anonymous folks on the Internet…
Anyway, just as Nairaland is a proper forum for such pyrrhic “victories”, civil courts are the proper forum for civil offenses. SMH
>

Gibberish! Empty headed fellow. Nothing in your head. Your education is a waste.

9jaRealist:


Dude, so many people once ignorantly believed that the earth was flat…
Unlike you, my principles and positions are NOT dependent on Nairaland ‘popularity’.

The saying that a people DESERVE their leaders keeps getting daily proof in present-day Nigeria! SMH
>

In that case obi is not better off. He was once a governor yet nothing to show for it. It was the same complaint.

duro4chang:
Gibberish! Empty headed fellow. Nothing in your head. Your education is a waste.

Your resort to JUVENILE rants/insults merely betray your lack of a substantive argument and CRUDE family upbringing…
>

duro4chang:
In that case obi is not better off. He was once a governor yet nothing to show for it. It was the same complaint.

Huh?!
>

African leaders are very responsible men. And none, I mean none has ever hatched plans for away matches.