Skit of Prank Contents on Social Media: The Legal Implications under the Nigeria Legal System

By Jamiu Lukman Akanbi

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, prank content has dominated a significant portion of Nigeria’s social media landscape. While these videos often aim to entertain, they frequently violate legal frameworks and infringe on individual rights. Many pranks are carried out without obtaining the consent of those involved, leading to fear, anxiety, and even potential legal consequences. This article explores the legal implications of prank content under the Nigerian legal system.

CONCEPT OF PRANK CONTENTS

Cognate with Middle Low German “prunken”, German ‘prunken,’, Danish ‘:prunke’. Sense of “mischievous act” from an earlier verbal sense of “to be crafty or subtle, set in order, adjust”.

According to the online Cambridge Dictionary of English defines the meaning of the word prank as “a trick that is intended to be amusing and often to make someone look foolish”

While Meriam Webster online dictionary sees the word prank as “a playful or mischievous act intended as a joke”

It is on this note, that we need to delve into the connotation of the prank as viewed according to Nigerian content creators. It is done to create a fear of force and anxiety to the innocent person (s) on the streets in order to create an amusement for the audience and cause laughter at the same time.

CONCEPT OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media, a form of mass media communications on the Internet (such as on websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos). Social networking and social media are overlapping concepts, but social networking is usually understood as users building communities among themselves while social media is more about using social networking sites and related platforms to build an audience.

It is submitted that a media is a way for people to interact online by creating, sharing, and exchanging information and ideas social media from top left) Instagram, Telegram, TikTok, and Facebook.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRANK CONTENTS VIOLATE ANY LAW UNDER THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

It is humbly submitted that content of Prank which is intending to create an amusement to the audience has a serious legal implications under the Nigerian Legal System being that the way the prank is done on social media is akin to incept with assault and same can lead to battery under the law which is maintainable under the criminal and Tort respectively in the Nigerian jurisprudence.

It equally creates public harassment and as a matter of fact this is against the public morality of the victim of prank and same is accommodative and maintainable under our judicial system especially where the victim (s) insist in taking legal action. It is germane on this note to know the concept of assault. What is assault?

According to section 252 of Criminal code which defines assault as A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without his consent, or with his consent, if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without his consent, in such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect his purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

While section 262 of Penal Code comprehensively defined assault as follows:

A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to that other or if he causes a substance to come into contact with a part of that other’s body or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying or with anything so situated that the contact affects that other’s sense of feeling where the person causing any effect above-mentioned, causes it-

(a) by his own bodily power, or

(b) by disposing any substance in such a manner that the effect takes place without any further voluntary act on his part or on the part of any other person; or

(c) by means of any animal.

However section 265 of the same Act punish anyone who causes assault on other person as follows:

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to a person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished-

(a) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both; and.

While paragraph (b) this same section provided for the assault causes grievous bodily hurt or injury which has already lead to battery:

if grievous hurt is caused to any person by such assault or criminal force with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

And if the act done by the offender can only be prove to lead to provocation there’s a punishment for same under section 266 of the Code

266. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to a person on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to forty naira or with both

From the import of the above, it can be submitted that assault itself if committed is punishable under the Nigeria Criminal Justice System. However, it is raised whether or not assault alone can be proved without actually commit battery. It is my humble submission that there can be assault without battery but the duo is to be proved in intertwined and in pari pasu because the two concepts are like twins respectively with each other.

It should be noted that assault is not only a crime but also tortous liability. It can equally be sued under the tort in the Nigeria Legal System. With some relevant ingredients because a damages can be secured. The following ingredients could be fish out to hold the perpetrator responsible in the tort of assault:

a. The defendant must perform a negative act

b. The defendant must intentionally cause the victim to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact

c. The victim must reasonably believe that harm is imminent

d. The perpetrator must seem capable of carrying out the threat

Assault is often charged alongside battery, which is the actual act of causing physical harm.

Explanation

The defendant’s act can be a threat of violence, such as threatening to stab the plaintiff

The victim must reasonably believe that the defendant is capable of carrying out the threat

The defendant does not need to make physical contact with the victim for assault to occur.

As a matter of fact, it was held in R v St George [1840] 9 C&P 483, that pointing gun that could create fear on another is an assault whether loaded or not.

In the same vein, the court brightly held in Stephens v Myers (1830)CCP 17 July , that if a person advances a manner of threatening to use force, there was an assault.

Flowing from the premise of the above, it could be easily submitted that it is a trite law that insertion or causing of anxiety and fear on the other individual (s) amount to assault under law of tort.

CASE STUDIES OF SKIT OF PRANKS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

How does prank become an assault? It could be supplied by delving into some case studies of skit of pranks e.g pranks done by Trinity prank where man was walking with his wife dressed with Àgbàda and the wife dressed with gowns going for outing an occasion, the couple suddenly hear the shouting “snake! Snake!! Snake!!!” Which makes the couple to snatched and run for their life, and besides the wife, there is a drainage or a thick dirty water on the hollow of ground. The both couple fell inside the water, and before you know, Trinity came out of the small bush where he laid an ambush and utterly speaks, “It is a Prank sir!” And the man said, a Prank!’ he answered in affirmative. And there was a real tough fighting between the man and the Trinity.

On another occasion by Trinity a lady was walking through the street and Trinity just called her to help him place a bowl of water on his head but unfortunately, Trinity was jokingly placing on the gal’s head which makes the her to get infuriated, and he was even using the lady to call. And started pleading, that she allowed him to through with the call, when the lady could not tolerated she welt him with bowl of water. He got angry and said why did the lady welt him with water? The lady said she could not bear it anymore, and she apologized for welting on the spot, that is how Trinity to help with the second bowl of water, and in the course of struggling to place it on the Trinity’s head. He went the lady completely with the bag, and the lady started crying that she was going to a place which is very important. It was said that, it is a content of Prank.

On the occasion of another pranker, Kunzlim, he was walking on the street and just jammed two lovers who equally walking through and brought out a pants that it was the lady pants she forgot to take in the hostel where was a receiptionist, yesterday the lady lodged with a matter. The lady was like, do you know what you are doing? He answered affirmatively that he was asked to bring the panks to her. The boyfriend was like crazy, really? You went to a man? The lady held Kunzlim said who sent you to trapped me? This is not fair. The lady was like, she was not the one but Kunzlim insisted that she was the one. And the boyfriend completely believes him. At this time, Kunzlim still fueled up the fire, by saying he meant to do good for the lady, and this has already caused the state of dilemma to the guy.the girl was now asking her boyfriend, so you believe him? And he did not know what to utter at this moment. The lady hurl to grasped the Pranker and told him she would leave him until he confessed of who set her up. When the husband tried to rescue Kunzlim, and it was now apparently evidenced that this lady really meant not to leave. Then he burst into laughter and gently utter, it was a prank.

In Furtherance of the above, it was on an occasion, when when Kunzlim was walking on the street and he met two lovers and asked both of them to wait, the guy was asking for what? Then Kunzlim pointed to the lady that were you not the one SKAPO asked out that refused, the lady was authoritatively node her in negative. Because Kunzlim affirmed that you were the one. Why will you be saying no to my SKAPO? And the lady said she was not the one. The guy was what happened ná àlàyé, she is my sister, she said has never seen any SKAPO. Then Kunzlim brought a phone and pretended to be speaking with anonymous SKAPO on phone. Then he suddenly said clearly that my gun is with, can I kill her? And the lady had started trembling at this crucial moment. Then the noisy of bangers exploded to the air and the guy ran away for his life. Before you know the lady has already fell down in the bush. And Kunzlim now voiced out that it was a prank he was doing. That it was just a explosion of bangers and not that of gun.

With the two aforesaid, cases to butress it could be apparently envisioned and evidenced that the three victims have suffered emotional trauma and shocked at this moment and already created undoubtedly fear on them. And this indeed can be said to have lead to assault and there could be elements of battery in the same scenarios.

It is submitted that the both Prankers Trinity, Kunzlim and all others Prankers in the streets have already violated one law or the other in the Nigeria jurisprudence. This is because they have ave engaged in the tort of assault with their skit prank online.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF SKIT OF PRANK ON THE VICTIMS

From one of the pranks done by Trinity, where he entered a victim compound, and pretended to be a sick person, he met lady eating rice and asked the lady to give him rice to eat because he was hungry. The lady insisted, and Trinity kept pressuring her until she gave her the rice, and the lady went to take bowl of water and welt him completely with Rice. Then Trinity confessed that it was a prank, that he met to give the lady money before. But he could not do so again. The lady asked for the money, he refused, and it was now apparently shown to the lady that he was recording, then the lady made a remark that “do not record me” and do not post the one recorded it was posted after all. That is why this unit will look at the implications of skit of pranks on the victims

It is my humble submission that apart from the facts that the victims will suffer emotional trauma, emotional attacks, fear and anxiety, which the court has already held that even point of unloaded gun amount to assault. See R v St George (Supra) and even threatening to use force without actually use is an assault. See Stephens v Myers (Supra)

In most cases right of privacy and Data Protection rights of each individual used to be infringed.

As this rights is a settled law that section 37 of the CFRN 1999 (as amended) protect right to privacy of individual which provides thus: The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.

There are plethora of cases which Court has been given credence recognition on this provision of the constitution. However, construing the bounds of the right to privacy under Nigeria law is not an easy one due to the absence a universal definition of the concept of privacy.

This fact was alluded to in the Australian case of Australia Broadcasting Commission v. Lenah Game Meats Pty. Ltd [2001] 185 ALR 1 where the court recognizing the hardship posed by an attempt to define privacy stated as follows: There is a large area in-between what is necessarily public and what is necessarily private. An activity is not private simply because it is not done in public. Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships or finances may be easy to identify as private.

The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private to Kirby J in Grosse v. Purvis[2003] QDC, 151, an actionable right to privacy accrues where a person intentionally intrudes in a way that is seen as very offensive to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities and which results in the claimant suffering mental, psychological or emotional harm or distress or which inhibits the claimant from engaging in an act which he is legally entitled to engage in. Thus, the test for what amounts to a violation of the right to privacy is objective rather than a subjective one

Flowing from the above, it can be submitted that, most of the prankers on the social tend to share personal data or information of the victims unnecessarily, even without the actual consent of the victims or the consent maybe obtained by fraud or aftermath of the pranking session.

In that regards most of these pranks sessions tend to violate the rights of individuals on Data protection jurisprudence in Nigeria. Because submitted that whenever most of the victims object to the facts that their videos should be posted, it will be resisted by the prankers. They would definitely still post it online on the public domain, right to be informed prior to the collection of personal data is also infringed.

In fact , this is even against the common sense or Public morality to do to individuals what can cause his life. Because scare of being harmed or die probable at time can cause death of such individual.

CONCLUSION

From the import of the above, it is submitted that this article has already thread on the skit of Prank which always posted on social media and it is fish out the position on the activities of these skit makers (Prankers) and it is however, finally submitted that individual victims of the pranking session can maintain an actions against the prankers. Whether as result of suffering trauma, threat, anxiety, from being pranked or even maintain action from Data protection law in Nigeria. Or infringement of right to privacy of every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The challenges have impliedly supplied above, it is therefore recommended to the skit makers to always seek the consent of the individual whom to be used to play a role in the skit of pranks before engaging such person. So that the trauma or anxiety, threat of force would not be there for such individual. And the right of privacy of each individual should be well protected to the full flavour.

About the Author

Jamiu Lukman Akanbi is a prolific writer and researcher with expertise in legal and non-legal topics. He is a graduate of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, with interests in corporate practice, litigation, tech law, arbitration, commercial practice, and tax law.

He can be reached at:

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 08146965956

LinkedIn: Jamiu Lukman Akanbi