By Chief Okoi Obono-Obla
A novel case has been filed by Nigerian lawyer Festus Ogun in Lagos State against the Governor of Lagos State, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, because the Governor blocked him on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Ogun contends that this action violates his fundamental rights.
While it is legally possible for a private individual like Festus Ogun to sue a public official for restricting access on a social media platform, the case is unprecedented within the Nigerian legal system. No superior court of record—such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Nigeria—has laid down a precedent for a lower court, like the High Court of Lagos State, to rely upon in adjudicating such a matter.
This absence of precedent poses a challenge, given the principle of judicial precedent, which is a cornerstone of Nigeria’s legal framework.
In the absence of domestic precedent, the court may turn to foreign jurisdictions with legal systems similar to Nigeria’s, particularly those within the Commonwealth.
These include the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Ghana, and others. In the United States, the issue of public officials blocking individuals on social media has been addressed in several landmark cases.
One such case is Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019), where a U.S. federal court held that government officials, including President Trump, could not block individuals on social media based on their viewpoints.
The court ruled that such actions constituted viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Key factors that would guide a Nigerian court in hearing a similar matter include:
– Whether the official social media account constitutes a public forum. Would the court consider Governor Sanwo-Olu’s X account a public forum under the circumstances?
– The nature of the blocking. Was the action taken based on the user’s viewpoint, or were there other justifiable reasons?
– Jurisdictional considerations. Laws and regulations governing social media and public officials vary across countries and even within states or provinces.
Another significant hurdle Festus Ogun may face is the constitutional immunity granted to governors under Section 308(1)(a)(b)(c) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. These provisions bar civil or criminal proceedings against sitting governors, which could potentially render the suit inadmissible while Governor Sanwo-Olu remains in office.
Be that as it may, the case filed by Festus Ogun is both compelling and groundbreaking. It is poised to capture national attention and provoke widespread legal and public discourse. Whatever the outcome, the court’s decision will likely establish a precedent in this emerging and highly relevant area of law—one that intersects digital rights, public accountability, and constitutional protections.
