It is remarkable what some social media users will do for ‘likes and views’. In today’s internet age, the ultimate currency isn’t talent or creativity; it is attention. How do you capture it, and more importantly, how do you keep it? It’s no surprise, then, that young people, in particular, continue to push boundaries in pursuit of ‘going viral’.
Unsurprisingly, many users have turned to lies and deception to gain traction online. While some of these falsehoods are mild and seemingly innocuous, others are deeply disturbing, prompting growing calls for greater regulation of the social media space.
The case of Mirabel, a young woman who published a harrowing account of her rape, serves as a potent case study. The initial, righteous indignation from both sincere advocates and opportunistic “clout chasers” was swiftly followed by forensic examination by online researchers, which revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This culminated in a confession to the Ogun State Police Command: the entire incident was a fabrication. This incident, while deeply troubling, does not pose a novel legal conundrum but rather exhumes an aged question: Is it a crime to lie? The simple answer is a resounding no. However, this answer is incomplete without a thorough exploration of its exceptions.
This article will proceed in a structured manner. First, it will establish the general rule by defining fundamental rights and examining the constitutional protection of expression under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Second, it will dissect the critical junctures where this right is forfeited, analysing the criminal offences of perjury, false statements to state agents, fraud, and the specific provisions of the Cybercrimes Act 2024.
Third, it will consider the civil remedies available to those harmed by lies, such as defamation and deceit. Finally, it will offer concluding thoughts on the delicate balance between liberty and liability in a secular,
constitutional democracy. Let’s start with rehashing the definition of our core concept; Fundamental Rights: fundamental rights are those bodies of rights that every human possesses inherently; they are provided
by God and protected by the government. The Supreme Court, in NDPHC LTD v. MICHAEL (2024) LPELR;79937(SC), affirmed this, defining them as “basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people.” This idea was elegantly captured by Eso, JSC in Ransome; Kuti v. Attorney General of the Federation (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 6) 211 at 230, where he described a fundamental right as one “which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which are in fact antecedent to the political society itself” a “primary condition to civilized existence.”
The government’s role, therefore, is not to grant these rights but to protect them from infringement. Lies/Falsehood/untruths; A lie, in its simplest form, is a statement of untruth. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition)
defines it as the act of “telling an untruth.” The Court of Appeal, in OBULADIKE v. NGANWUCHU (2013) LPELR;21265(CA), provided a more nuanced interpretation, equating “untruthful” with “saying things that you know are not true.” Thus, a lie is a volitional act involving a deliberate disconnect between the speaker’s knowledge and their expressed statement, crafted with the intent to mislead or deceive. While all major religious and moral traditions in Nigeria, Christianity, Islam, and African Traditional Religion, universally condemn lying as sinful and reprehensible, this moral condemnation does not, ipso facto, translate into legal proscription. As the Supreme Court reiterated in EGBA v. STATE (2025) LPELR;80673(SC), for an act or omission to constitute a crime in Nigeria, it “must be proscribed by a written law, with punishment for such act or omission prescribed
therein.” In the absence of such a law, and given Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution, which forbids the adoption of any religion as a state religion, the mere act of lying remains outside the purview of the criminal law.
The liberty to lie is not an anomaly within the Nigerian legal order; it is a logical extension of the robust protection afforded to freedom of expression. Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” To read a “truth mandate” into this section would be an impermissible judicial legislation, adding words not intended by the framers. The general rule of interpretation is that words that are clear must be given their ordinary meaning. Consequently, the Nigerian legal system does not recognise a criminal offence of “lying”, simpliciter. Telling a falsehood to a friend, a spouse, or a colleague, while morally questionable, is not a matter that activates the coercive power of the state. The state is not, and constitutionally cannot be, the arbiter of truth in private social discourse. The Supreme Court in STATE v. DANIEL (2025) LPELR;82006(SC) implicitly reinforced this by holding that “the mere fact that a person told lies is by itself
sufficient to convict him of an offence unconnected with mendacity.” A lie, in itself, is not a crime; it is
the purpose or context of the lie that can make it one.
However, the right to freedom of expression, like all rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution, is not absolute. The law recognises specific fora and contexts where the individual’s liberty to speak falsehoods is justifiably curtailed in favour of a greater public good. The most significant exception arises when
an individual enters a forum where the law imposes a binding duty to be truthful. Let’s take a look at some of the clear exceptions to the right to lie.
Perjury: When a person testifies under oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding, they have voluntarily submitted to a regime where truth is paramount. Section 117 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 156 of the Penal Code Act criminalise the intentional making of a false statement in such a setting. The offence of perjury, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment, exists because the administration of justice would collapse if witnesses and litigants were free to lie with impunity. The oath is a formal surrender of the “right to lie.”
False Statements to State Agents: A similar principle governs interactions with law enforcement. Knowingly making a false statement to a police officer investigating an offence can lead to charges for “making false statements to public officers.” This is predicated on the citizen’s duty to assist in the administration of
justice, not to pervert its course. The fabricated rape allegation in the Mirabel case, which triggered a police investigation, would fall squarely within this exception if she had indeed made a statement to the police claiming to have been raped.
Lies as Instruments of Criminality (Fraud and Inchoate Offences); A lie ceases to be a mere falsehood and becomes a criminal act when it is employed as a tool to commit a separate crime. If the falsehood is designed to obtain property, money, or a pecuniary advantage, it transforms into the crime of “obtaining by false pretences” or “fraud” under the Criminal and Penal Codes. The mens rea (criminal intent) is the key differentiator:
the lie is told not just to deceive, but to cause a specific, legally recognisable harm. Furthermore, lies that form part of an agreement to commit a crime constitute the inchoate offence of conspiracy.
Lies in the Digital Sphere: The Cybercrimes Act 2024 The advent of the internet has necessitated specific legislation. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024 targets certain false statements made via computer systems. Section 24 of the Act criminalises the sending of messages that are “grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”
While this provision is a legislative attempt to curb online nuisance, its limitations are evident. It primarily targets
the character of the message (its offensiveness or menacing nature) rather than its mere falsity. A cleverly crafted but entirely false statement that does not meet the threshold of being “grossly offensive” or “menacing” may still fall outside its ambit. It is not a comprehensive prohibition on all online falsehoods.
Where the criminal law reaches its limits, the civil law provides a powerful mechanism for accountability. Justice in this realm is not about incarceration but about compensation; “going after the pocket” of the wrongdoer. The threshold of proof is much lower in civil actions, and the burdensome element of mens rea is eliminated, making it possible for anyone who has suffered loss to sue anyone who has caused the loss, regardless of the intentions
of the person who occasioned such loss. A liar can be completely absolved of any criminal liability, only to suffer a hefty award of damages against him. Let us consider a few aspects of civil claims against lies.
Defamation: Any lie that damages the reputation of another person constitutes the tort of defamation; a lie ceases to enjoy the protection of freedom of expression when it reduces the reputation of anyone. As affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dumbo & Ors v. Idogboe (1983), a person whose reputation is harmed by a published falsehood can sue for damages. The remedy is a monetary award designed to compensate for the
injury and restore the claimant’s standing. The emphasis in a case of defamation is not as much the veracity of the claim made, but the damage to the reputation of the Claimant; no court would award a kobo to a glaring lie that polishes the image of the Claimant. In defamation cases, the emphasis is on whether a reputation was damaged rather than whether a lie was told.
Tort of Deceit / Fraudulent Misrepresentation: A lie told to induce another party to enter a contract, such as a social media influencer with a large following of bots falsely representing their reach to secure a paid partnership, is actionable as deceit. The injured party can rescind the contract and claim damages for any loss suffered. It is safe to expect a plethora of these kinds of suits in the near future.
Abuse of Public/Private Resources: A person who makes a malicious false accusation that wastes police time and resources, or causes another person to be wrongfully arrested, could face a civil claim for malicious prosecution or for the economic loss incurred. This route directly addresses the quantifiable damage caused by the lie. The State can bring a civil suit seeking special and punitive damages against a maker of a statement that costs the state to waste time and money in investigating the falsity.
In Conclusion, the aim it is safe to stress that owing to Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended), our country cannot be governed in whole or part by religious laws, and insofar as lies have not been proscribed as an offence simpliciter, one cannot be arrested or prosecuted for lying; however this rule is not without glaring exceptions, the most glaring exception is perjury, where a person surrenders his right to lie. Overall, lies must be seen from the prism of mens rea; the intention behind the lies will most likely determine whether a crime was
committed or not.
Since we started this discourse with Mirabel’s case, it is safe to end our discussion with a closer look at the facts of her case. We know for a fact that she claimed to have been raped and then retracted her statement after the police had opened an investigation into the matter. We also know that she had indeed received money from well-meaning Nigerians, who had tried to ameliorate her pains and sufferings. We also know that she had actively encouraged such donations. Her falsehood seemed tailored to obtain money by falsely pretending to be raped, thereby whipping up sympathy and sentiments from people. In my opinion, her right to lie has been subdued by her fraudulent intent.