Abuja: Some legal practitioners have highlighted that while Nigeria lacks specific laws dedicated to pranks and skits, creators are still fully accountable for their content under existing criminal and civil laws.
According to News Agency of Nigeria, the absence of specific regulations underscores significant gaps in the country’s legal framework governing skit making and pranks on social media platforms. Mr. Ernest Nwike, a lawyer, explained that Nigeria’s legal landscape includes constitutional rights, criminal laws, civil liability (torts), and recent digital regulations, all of which apply depending on the nature of the skit or prank. He noted that the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides for freedom of expression under Section 39 while guaranteeing privacy rights under Section 37, thus balancing content creation against the protection of individual rights.
Nwike further noted that some content creators often overstep boundaries, potentially harming or defaming individuals under the guise of entertainment. The legality of a prank, he stated, hinges on whether it violates someone’s rights. Another lawyer, Ndubuisi Richard, emphasized that content leading to ridicule, hatred, or reputational harm could be considered defamation. He explained that although the law does not specify skit making and pranks as a crime, there is a fine line between entertainment and legal infringement.
Richard also pointed out that while the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) regulates traditional media content for the public interest, it does not extend to everyday social media skits. Instead, creators are subject to defamation law, privacy and data protection laws, cybercrime law, and constitutional rights.
Arinze Mbanefo, another legal expert, mentioned that comedy and satire are protected under freedom of expression unless they involve defamation, incitement, or violations of broadcasting codes. He warned that stricter regulations might infringe on freedom of expression if not carefully implemented, potentially curbing harmful content but also risking the silencing of dissent and the weakening of democratic principles.
Ahmed Bello highlighted the challenge posed by the rapid growth of digital creativity, which is outpacing existing laws. He noted that while skit making is generally treated as audio-visual content, enforcement over online content remains limited. Richard Emmanuel echoed this sentiment, stating that while comedy is a form of expression, it does not excuse unlawful acts, and pranking unsuspecting members of the public carries significant legal risks.
The lawyers collectively acknowledged the lack of clear regulation for skit making or prank videos under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act. They called for a more comprehensive legal framework to address the realities of online content creation, though they pointed out that Section 24 of the act imposes penalties for harmful conduct on digital platforms, which could apply to pranks or skits that violate people’s rights. As reported by NAN, Section 24 includes penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment or a N7 million fine for offensive or false messages, and up to ten years’ imprisonment or a minimum N25 million fine for serious threats, cyberstalking, or extortion.