By M. O. Idam, Esq
It’s no longer news that people make and keep intimate videos in their phones, and sometimes send them to their loved ones or to their partners in coitus. I have no problem with what people do to keep their relationships. What I am most concerned with is what the recipients of the videos do with them when the butterflies in their relationships die. Yes! I mean after ‘breakfast’ is served what happens to the intimate videos?
I have a case of a lady who sought legal help against her ex-boyfriend who threatened to leak her intimate (sex) videos if she failed to meet his financial demands. The lady had sent those videos to her then-boyfriend, when their relationship was lovey-dovey. Sadly, Romeo had become rival to Juliet.
The hazard is that individuals who are victims of sextortion either lack the confidence to seek professional help, or they are poorly informed to do so. Hence, they yield to the demands of their blackmailers in a bid to avert the consequences of their threats which oftentimes are never averted.
I have also read and heard how victims of sextortion dejectedly opt for suicide when they are unable to handle or meet the demands of their blackmailers. This is because the human mind is psychologically weak and gullible to pressure and anxiety. The reason suicide becomes an option when set on a crown of thorns.
Interestingly, the Nigerian justice system has made sufficient provisions to protect victims of sextortion or sexual blackmail whether alive or dead. Sections 373 of the Criminal Code Act, provides that:
“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 any injury to his, reputation. Such matter may be expressed in spoken words or in any audible sounds, or in words legibly marked on any substance whatever, or by any sign or object signifying such matter otherwise than by words, and may be expressed either directly or by insinuation or irony.
It is immaterial whether at the time of the publication of the defamatory matter, the person concerning, whom such matter is published is living or dead: Provided that no prosecution for the publication of defamatory matter concerning a dead person shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney‐General of the Federation.”
Consequently, Section 376 of the Criminal Code, provides for the punishment of the offence thus: “Any person who publishes, or threatens to publish, or offers to abstain from publishing, or offers to prevent the publication of defamatory matter, with intent to extort money or other property, or with intent to induce any person to give, confer, procure, or attempt to procure, to, upon, or for, any person, any property or benefit of any kind, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.”
Nevertheless, if the offence were committed in the North, the punishment extend to fourteen (14) years imprisonment upon conviction of the offender. Under the Penal Code, section 138 provides thus:
“No person shall, with intent to extort or gain anything from any person –
(a) threaten expressly or impliedly to make about any person, living or dead, any accusation or disclosure of any offence, or moral misconduct, whether the accusation or disclosure is true or
not;
(b) threaten expressly or impliedly that any person shall make any such accusation or disclosure
about any person living or dead;
(c) threaten to publish, or offer to abstain from publishing, any defamatory words within the
meaning of section 120;
(d) send or cause to be sent to any person any document containing any such threat;
(e) by any such means compel or attempt to compel any person to sign, execute, make, accept; endorse, alter, or destroy the whole or part of any valuable security, or to write, impress, or affix any name or seal upon any document in order that it may afterwards be used as a valuable security;
(f) by any such means induce or compel or attempt to induce or compel any person to do any act against his will, other than an act which it is his legal duty to do, or not to do any lawful act.”
Penalty: Imprisonment for 14 years.
Aside from the criminal consequences of the act, a victim of sex blackmail also reserves the right to pursue a civil claim for damages against the blackmailer for defamation of character. This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court Per- Nweze, JSC (of blessed memory) in Chilkied Security Services & Dog Farms Limited Vs. Schlumberger Nig. LTD & Anor (2018) LPELR SC 85/2007 where defamation was defined as the injury occasioned to another person’s reputation by either written or spoken words. See also the cases of Ashiek Vs. MT Nigeria LTD (2010) 15 NWLR (1215) @ 114. Guardian News Paper Vs. Ajeh (2011) 10 NWLR 1256 @574 the Court of Appeal per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JCA held that “the assessment of damages for libel is in the realm of general damages, that are presumed by law, factors to be considered would be the peculiar facts and circumstances of the defamation as shown in the evidence placed before the court.” See also Isikwenu Vs. Iroh (2012) LPELR 17982 (CA).
The law is trite that once a Claimant can prove that a publication was made to a third party other than the Claimant by the Defendant and that the said publication has lowered the reputation of the Claimant in the estimation of the right-thinking members of the public, such can be construed as defamation. See Guaranty Trust Bank Plc vs. Mr Hussein Fadlallah (2009) LPELR – 8355 (CA), where the Honourable Court held that a defamatory imputation consists of the publication of the alleged defamatory statement to a third person (s) of any words or matter which tend to lower the person defamed in the estimation of right-thinking members of the community. Furthermore, to constitute publication, all that is required is the making known of the defamatory matter to some persons other than the person to whom it is written. See also, Ayo Fayose vs. Independent Communications Network & ors (2012) LPELR 9833 (CA), Okafor vs. Ifeanyi (1979) 384 SC 99, Ufua vs. Eborieme (1993) LPELR- 23674 (CA).
CONCLUSION
Without further ado, the publication of intimate contents of persons to third parties without their consent and with the intention to bring their image to ridicule, mockery and scorn, apart from the criminal consequences, also qualifies as defamation and the remedy will be damaged in favour of the victim.
M. O. Idam, Esq.,
PP. M. O. IDAM ATTORNEYS.
Public Interest Advocate.
Human Rights Lawyer.
Public Enlightenment Lawyer.
