October 8, 2024
A few weeks ago, the Lagos High Court delivered an intriguing judgment in favour of an actress named Adunni Ade.
She was awarded ₦20 million in damages against a news platform that published a list of “Six popular Nigerian actresses who have been accused of dating Dino Melaye,” with Adunni Ade’s picture and name included in the said list.
Of course, she didn’t find it funny. According to her, the publication painted her in a false and misleading light, violated her privacy, caused emotional distress, and used her image without consent.
So she sued.
And she won.
Although the news platform argued that she already had thousands of her pictures on her public Instagram profile, made accessible to her millions of fans, and raised the issue of late filing of the suit; the Lagos state High Court agreed that Adunni’s right to privacy under Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution had been violated.
The court also held that her image and personal data were used without consent, which constitutes a breach of her data privacy rights under the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Court noted that she need not have submitted her personal data directly to the defendant to bring a cause of action under privacy/data protection.
Consequently, she was awarded her ₦20 million in damages and the Court ordered the news platform to delete and expunge her name and photograph from the article.
The interesting thing about this case is that it was not the typical “defamation suit” as we know it. It was about privacy and how far the media can go in publishing information about public figures.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that there are four interests that the right to privacy seeks to protect, namely:
- An intrusion upon seclusion or solitude
Publication of embarrassing private facts - Appropriation of name or likeness without consent
- Publicity placing an individual in false light before the public eye.
The “False Light” principle
This case adds to the sparse jurisprudence under Nigerian law that recognises the concept of “false light.”
Falsehood is different from false light.
Falsehood, which is usually the basis of a defamation suit, means that the information published about a person is untrue.
False light, however, means that although possibly true, a person’s information has been published without their consent, in a manner that ridicules, embarrasses or generally portrays the said person in negative light.
Irrespective of how true a statement is, it would still offend the dignity and personal rights of the person whom such statements are about, if the statements are used to ridicule, molest or damage the reputation of the person in public.
With the development of this legal principle, people can no longer hide behind ‘truth’ to malign others.
The Court found that Adunni Ade’s case was a case of infringement of right to privacy by publishing in false light. It further highlighted the following, as the elements of this wrongful act:
The public disclosure of misleading information;
The disclosed information need not be false;
There must be a publication by the Defendant about the Claimant;
The publication must be done with reckless disregard on the part of the defendant;
The publication must place the Claimant in false light; and The publication must be highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person.
The Naomi Campbell Case
The “False Light” principle is not entirely brand new. It was also adopted by a UK court in 2004, in the case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers.
The Daily Mirror, a British national daily newspaper published photos of supermodel Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting right after she had publicly denied using drugs.
She sued the Newspaper for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, breach of her right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (via the Human Rights Act).
The Daily Mirror however contended that there was a public interest in exposing that she had lied to the public about drug use, and that as a public figure she had lesser expectation of privacy.
Public interest here refers to newsworthy information that contributes to public understanding of an issue that affects society. In this instance, Naomi had publicly denied using drugs, so exposing that she attended Narcotics Anonymous was “setting the record straight.”
The UK’s House of Lords disagreed, holding that the publication was an invasion of her privacy/breach of confidence, because her therapy sessions had sensitive, confidential character. More so, the details and photos were private/confidential, and there was no overriding public interest to justify full disclosure.
Finally, while the paper could report that she was receiving treatment, it had no right to publish private, sensitive details and photos from her therapy sessions.
Although the House of Lords partly agreed that the public had an interest in knowing if Naomi misled them, the details and secret photos of her therapy were not necessary to serve that interest. The publication crossed the line from legitimate public interest into unlawful intrusion.
Naomi won the case and was awarded £3,500 in damages.
The similarity between both cases is that both courts recognized that the public profiles of the celebrities did not preclude them from their rights to privacy to not be named in false light, and the misuse of images. Both judgments emphasized that even “public persons” have private lives which deserve protection.
Potential Downsides of this Principle
Although this a welcome development of the law, we cannot overlook the fact that an over-reliance on privacy claims might hinder free expression and journalism, especially investigative reporting. Courts must be careful to balance privacy with public interest.
The bottom line is that in this social-media-driven world where everyone wants the next viral story, we must bear in mind that the right to privacy protects not just reputation but dignity.
As privacy law continues to evolve in Nigeria, expect to see more people, not just celebrities, holding media outlets and private individuals accountable for crossing the line.
Courtesy: Lawpadi
