Lagos court sanctions X, user N70m for defaming law graduate

The Lagos High Court sitting in Ikorodu has ordered X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to disclose the identity of a user, @_AbiolaPharays, accused of manipulating a birthday post belonging to a Nigerian law graduate, Esther Agboola.

According to a judgment delivered on June 5, 2026, and obtained by PUNCH Metro on Wednesday, Justice Adeniyi Pokanu held that the unauthorised manipulation and republication of Agboola’s post amounted to a breach of her right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution.

Agboola, through her X handle, @agirlnamed_esth, had shared photographs on January 9, 2026, with the caption, “Chapter 25. Happy Birthday to me!”, to celebrate her 25th birthday.

She told the court that the anonymous X user retrieved her January 2025 birthday post, originally made to celebrate her 24th birthday, and altered its timestamp to create the false impression that it had been published at a different time, thereby misleading members of the public.

Justice Pokanu held that X Corp, as the owner and operator of the platform, possesses information and activity logs capable of identifying the anonymous account and consequently ordered the company to file an affidavit disclosing the user’s identity.

The court awarded Agboola N20m in general damages against the unidentified X user for the mental anguish, emotional distress, harassment, reputational injury and humiliation she suffered.

It also awarded N50m in conditional damages against X Corp if the company fails to comply with the order directing it to disclose the identity of the account holder.

“General damages in the sum of N20,000,000.00 against the first respondent for the mental anguish, emotional distress, harassment, reputational injury, and humiliation suffered by the applicant as a direct result of the unlawful acts of the 1st Respondent.

“General damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00 against the second respondent, payable conditionally where the second respondent fails, omits, or refuses to file the affidavit of disclosure as mandated by this judgment,” the court ruled.(Punch)