By Daniel K. Kip
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Many would like to consider the invention of the internet as an amoral reality not inherently bad and not inherently good, but a product of what one chooses to make of it. Like every other amoral reality, we have seen both positive and negative uses of the internet in drawing us closer to one another and eroding boundaries, that until now, erected walls amongst individuals. When the idea of the internet turning the globe to a global village first emerged even experts did not envisage the erosion of door knobs and or invasion of privacy to the degree facilitated by social media today.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attack.”
According to the Black’s law dictionary, privacy right or right of privacy refers to: ‘the right to be left alone, the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity. Constitutionally, Section 37 of the CFRN 1999 (as amended) states categorically that: ‘The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected’. There are myriads of cases that have defined what privacy right connotes.
2.0 FORMS OF PRIVACY INVASION
Privacy invasions range from Intrusion of Solitude or Intrusion into Seclusion, Identity Appropriation, Creation of False Impression, Public disclosure of private information, Breach of Confidentiality of Source, and Conspiracy.
Identity Appropriation is rampant on Facebook and it implies the use of the name and/or image of another without authorization. Breach of confidentiality of source occurs when a journalist reveals or makes public, information that was given to him for private consumption.
One invasion which is gaining notoriety on social media is the public disclosure of private information or fact. So, the publication on social media of a private matter or fact which causes hurt or embarrassment to the victim is actionable and it doesn’t matter if it is true.
This brings to the fore, the viral case of the Equatorial Guinea Anti-Graft Chief scandal whose premises was busted due to an investigation for fraud and the authorities in the cause of the search found private sex tapes and leaked it on social media. It is a good example of privacy invasion. The public disclosure of private information can have damning consequences. There are instances of cyber threats or blackmail stemming from such invasions, that have led to deaths or bodily harm.
Some months back, social media went agog when the popular VDM (Very Dark Man) called out the Correctional Service, Bobrisky, etc. The said VDM played a voice call recording and while explaining the content, placed some persons in a false light. This brings us to the privacy invasion of Creation of False Impression. Creation of False Impression connotes the publication of facts but in a false manner. It is the representation of facts and data in a manner that is misrepresenting and misleading the truth.
In P. P. & P. (NIG) LTD. V. OLAGHERE (2019) 2 NWLR (PT. 1657) 54, the Court of Appeal awarded damages in favour of the Respondent whose House was photographed and used by the Appellant for advertisement in a Calendar. The Court of Appeal at page 569, para. E held that “…the use of photographs of the 1st Respondent’s house on the appellants’ calendar created the false impression that the appellants’ products were used for the painting or construction of the said building.”
3.0 LEGAL REMEDIES
Privacy invasion as a civil wrong can be ventilated in a Court of law. For a privacy suit to succeed, it is required that the plaintiff proves the following elements:
i. Existence of a secret and private subject matter.
ii. A right possessed by the plaintiff to keep the matter private
iii. Information about the subject matter being obtained by some method objectionable to a reasonable man.
On the other hand, for a suit of public disclosure to be successful, the following elements must co-exist:
i. The disclosure must be sufficiently widespread to the extent that is made public.
ii. The disclosure must have resulted in an embarrassment that is sufficient to affect an ordinary reasonable person.
iii. The publication must relate to private facts that are not within the realms of the legitimate news.vi
iv. The publication must not be part of public records.
Regarding a Suit on creation of false impression, the following elements must be established, that:
i. There is a publication by the defendant about the plaintiff
ii. It was done with reckless disregard
iii. It placed the plaintiff in a false light
iv. It would be highly offensive and embarrassing to a reasonable person.
The defences that may avail a defendant in a privacy suit are the defence of newsworthiness, public interest, consent, permanent publication, etc
4.0 CONCLUSION
The current social media interface is eroding old notions of privacy thus making it blurry to describe what is private and leaving a porous reality where privacy rights abuses are carried out unchecked. After World War II the right to privacy was elevated to the level of a human right at the international level. Thus, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) 1948viii captures this right. The European Convention on Human Rightsix recognizes privacy rights, the General Data Protection Regulation, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 all recognize and protect privacy rights.
Anybody whose privacy is invaded can bring a suit for invasion of privacy against the violator in a civil court and such a person is entitled to certain reliefs, including damages.
Name: DANIEL K. KIP
Title: Legal Practitioner, Arbitrator, Notary Public, Rights Activist, Writer
Telephone: +2348036964847
Email: kipdann@gmail.com
ENDNOTES
