The aborted attempt to arrest one Tani Olorun, a traditionalist social media influencer accused of defaming the Emir of Ilorin and mocking Islam online, has raised a fundamental legal question.

The Oyo State Commissioner of Police advised the complainant, Ilorin Heritage, to file a fresh application in Ibadan where the defendant resides. With respect, that advice is not supported by law.

1. THE FACTS AS THEY STAND
The complaint was initiated in an Upper Area Court in Ilorin. A valid warrant of arrest was issued against the defendant for jumping bail. The offence alleged is online defamation of the Emir of Ilorin and the Muslim faith.

The publication was online. It was accessed, read and understood in Ilorin. That is where the Emir resides and where the reputation of the institution was injured.

2. JURISDICTION IN ONLINE DEFAMATION: THE LAW AND RECENT AUTHORITIES
The internet has no borders. Law must have a seat. The settled principle is "publication where read and damage suffered."

A. International Authorities

1. UK: -Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd- UKSC 27 Ratio: For jurisdiction in defamation, the court must consider where the claimant's reputation has been seriously harmed. The place of access is critical. The Supreme Court rejected "libel tourism" but affirmed jurisdiction where substantial publication occurred.

2. Canada: Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda- 1 SCR 572 Ratio: Canadian courts can assume jurisdiction where there is a "real and substantial connection" to the forum. In internet torts, that connection is where the content was downloaded and viewed.

3. Australia: -Dow Jones v Gutnick- HCA 56

Ratio: A defamatory publication on the internet occurs in the place where it is downloaded and read. Victims can sue in any jurisdiction where the material was accessed. This killed the "single publication rule" for the internet.

4. US: Calder v Jones 465 U.S. 783 - "Effects Test"

Ratio: Jurisdiction lies where the defendant’s intentional conduct was aimed at the forum and caused harm there. Applied to online defamation: if you target an Ilorin Emir, you answer in Ilorin.[2019][2012][2002][1984]

B. Nigerian Position:

1. Common Law Principle: Defamation is a tort of strict liability. Publication is complete when a 3rd party reads it. See -Berezovsky v Forbes Inc- 1 WLR 1004, adopted in Nigeria.

2. Cybercrimes Act 2015, Sec 24 & 36

Section 24: Criminalizes cyberstalking and offensive online messages.

Section 36: "An offence under this Act shall be deemed to have been committed in any place where the offence was committed or where the result of the offence occurred."

Ratio: Federal High Court has nationwide jurisdiction. But the "effect" can be prosecuted in the state where it was felt.

3. Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act: A warrant or process issued by a Kwara court can be endorsed and executed in Oyo State. The residence of the defendant does not oust jurisdiction.

4. 1999 Constitution, Sec 214(2)(c): The Police shall execute warrants issued by courts of competent jurisdiction anywhere in Nigeria.[2000]

To ask Ilorin Heritage to file afresh in Ibadan is to import a territorial rule that the internet has destroyed. It rewards jumping bail and forum shopping.

C. WHY THE ILORIN COURT IS THE PROPER FORUM

1. Locus of Injury: The Emir of Ilorin is the symbol of Ilorin Emirate. His reputation is centered in Ilorin. The people insulted live in Ilorin and Kwara. This satisfies Lachaux "serious harm" test.

2. Place of Publication: Under Gutnick, the post was published in Ilorin the moment it was downloaded and read there by -Ilorin Heritage- and other 3rd parties.

3. Targeting/Effects Test: Under Calder, the content was aimed at the Emir of Ilorin. The foreseeable harm was in Ilorin.

4. Process Already Issued: A competent court has issued a valid warrant. The duty of police nationwide is to execute it. Geography of the suspect is not a bar.

D. THE DANGER OF THE CP’S ADVICE

If we accept that online defamation must be prosecuted only where the publisher resides, then any influencer in Lagos can defame the Ooni, the Sultan, or the Emir of Ilorin and say "come and arrest me in Lagos". That legalizes cyber brigandage and kills accountability.

It also ignores Sec 36 of the Cybercrimes Act which allows prosecution in any state where the offence had effect.

CONCLUSION

Ilorin Heritage filed in the correct venue. The Upper Area Court Ilorin was right to issue a warrant.

The proper step for Oyo Police was to receive the warrant, endorse it, execute it, and transfer the suspect to Kwara under due process. Asking the complainant to start afresh in Ibadan creates a safe haven for digital offenders.

In the digital era, jurisdiction follows harm. The harm happened in Ilorin. The case belongs in Ilorin.

Let law enforcement speak with one voice. A warrant from any court in Nigeria is a warrant for all of Nigeria. 

Mahmud Abdulraheem Esq., Notary Public, Ph.D. Mass Communication, LL.M., BL., LL.B.
Adjunct Lecturer, University of Ilorin. Former GM, Radio Kwara & Kwara TV.
Chief Promoter, Gerin FM 95.5.
Writes from Ilorin.