Bar George Ogunjimi Explains Legal Risks of Davido’s Okpebholo Result Post
A UK-based Nigerian lawyer, Barrister George Ogunjimi, has said Davido’s publication of the purported examination results of Edo State Governor, Monday Okpebholo, raises significant legal questions surrounding privacy, data protection, defamation and freedom of expression.
Ogunjimi, writing from Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, said the legal implications of the controversial publication would depend largely on the authenticity of the document, how it was obtained, the purpose for which it was released and the impression created by the accompanying statements.
The legal practitioner made the observation while examining the possible consequences of the publication in the context of Nigerian law.
According to him, the controversy goes beyond the social-media exchange between Nigerian music star David Adeleke, popularly known as Davido, and Governor Okpebholo, as it touches on fundamental questions about the extent to which personal information relating to public officials can lawfully be obtained and published.
Ogunjimi noted that Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees the privacy of citizens, including their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications.
Although academic records are not expressly mentioned in the provision, he explained that examination results ordinarily constitute personal information relating to an identifiable individual and could therefore raise legitimate privacy concerns when disclosed without authorisation.
He further pointed to the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, which regulates the collection, processing and disclosure of personal data.
“Examination results constitute information relating to an identifiable individual and may therefore fall within the scope of personal data,” Ogunjimi stated.
He, however, cautioned that the application of the Data Protection Act to a social-media publication would depend on the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, including the purpose of the processing and whether any statutory exemption applies.
Defamation risk
The lawyer identified defamation as another major legal issue that could arise from the publication.
He explained that where a publication concerning an individual is capable of lowering that person’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, exposing the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or causing reputational damage, it could potentially give rise to a defamation claim.
According to him, if the purported examination result creates an impression that Governor Okpebholo possesses certain educational qualifications, failed an examination or has an academic record materially different from what he has publicly represented, the circumstances could become relevant to a potential defamation action.
Ogunjimi stressed, however, that the authenticity of the document would be critical.
“If the examination result is genuine and accurately represents Okpebholo’s academic record, Davido could potentially rely on truth or justification as a defence to a defamation action, subject to the particular facts and applicable requirements of Nigerian law,” he explained.
He warned that the legal position could be significantly different if the document was fabricated, altered or falsely attributed to the governor.
According to him, publishing a false document with knowledge of its falsity, particularly where it causes reputational damage, could expose the publisher to substantial civil liability and potentially other legal consequences.
How was the document obtained?
Ogunjimi also identified the circumstances under which the examination result was obtained as an important consideration.
He said there was a significant legal distinction between publishing information that had lawfully entered the public domain and publishing information obtained through unauthorised access, theft, hacking or unlawful disclosure.
“If the examination result was obtained through an unlawful breach of a computer system or an individual’s account, the conduct of the person who originally obtained the document could potentially raise issues under Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation,” he said.
He added, however, that Davido’s potential liability would depend on what he knew, how he obtained the material and the precise conduct attributable to him.
The lawyer cautioned against automatically treating the reposting of information found online as a cybercrime without establishing the specific elements of an offence.
Public office does not erase privacy rights
Ogunjimi further noted that Governor Okpebholo’s position as a public official introduces an important public-interest dimension to the controversy.
He acknowledged that public officials are generally subject to greater scrutiny, particularly concerning matters relating to their qualifications, integrity and performance of public duties.
He said where information concerns a public official’s qualifications for office or representations made to the public, there could be a legitimate public-interest basis for discussing and investigating such information.
However, he stressed that occupying public office does not completely eliminate an individual’s right to privacy.
“A governor does not automatically lose all control over his personal information merely because he occupies public office,” he stated.
He said Nigerian law must therefore strike a balance between legitimate public interest in information concerning public officials and the individual’s right to privacy and protection from unlawful or malicious disclosure.
Intention and context matter
According to Ogunjimi, the manner and purpose of the publication could also become important if the matter eventually results in legal proceedings.
He explained that publishing an examination result as part of a legitimate public debate over a public official’s qualifications could potentially be viewed differently from publishing the material solely to humiliate, ridicule or damage the individual’s reputation.
He added that statements accompanying the document could create additional legal questions, particularly where they allege dishonesty, fraud or other forms of misconduct.
The lawyer also drew a distinction between civil and criminal liability.
He noted that an individual who believes his reputation or privacy has been unlawfully harmed may seek civil remedies, including damages, injunctions and other appropriate relief.
However, he stressed that criminal liability cannot simply be inferred from the publication of personal information.
“The mere fact that a person’s private examination result has been published online does not, without more, automatically establish a criminal offence,” he said.
According to him, relevant authorities would have to identify the specific statutory provision allegedly breached and establish all the elements required to prove the offence.
‘It is premature to conclude Davido committed an offence’
Ogunjimi ultimately cautioned against reaching a definitive legal conclusion without establishing the facts surrounding the controversial publication.
He said the authenticity of the examination result, the manner in which it was obtained, whether Governor Okpebholo had previously made his academic qualifications a subject of public controversy, the purpose of the publication and the exact words used alongside the document would all be relevant in determining possible liability.
He said the strongest potential legal claim would depend on whether the publication contained false or defamatory material or involved an unlawful disclosure of protected personal information.
“If the result is genuine and its publication can be justified by a legitimate public interest, Davido may have substantial defences,” he said.
“Conversely, if the document is false, unlawfully obtained, or published in a manner that deliberately and unjustifiably damages Okpebholo’s reputation or privacy, the governor may have grounds for legal action.”
Ogunjimi concluded that the controversy provides another illustration of the difficult balance Nigerian law must maintain between freedom of expression, public accountability and the protection of individual privacy in the digital age.
Barrister George Ogunjimi Esq.
Writing from Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
