A defamation case involving a prominent blogger and the founder of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries has reached a decisive conclusion following the dismissal of the blogger’s appeal by an appellate court.
The court upheld an earlier judgment that found the blogger liable for defamatory publications against the church leader, ruling that the statements were false, malicious and damaging to reputation. As part of the judgment, the blogger was ordered to pay damages amounting to one hundred thousand dollars.
The case arose from online publications that accused the cleric of serious misconduct without credible evidence. The trial court had ruled that the blogger failed to verify claims and acted recklessly, causing reputational harm that extended beyond Nigeria due to the global reach of digital platforms.
In rejecting the appeal, the appellate court held that freedom of expression does not extend to the dissemination of falsehoods presented as facts. The judges emphasized that bloggers and digital publishers bear the same responsibility as traditional media organisations to uphold accuracy, fairness and ethical standards.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the accountability of online content creators in an era where social media amplifies unverified information. They note that the judgment sends a clear message that the courts will not tolerate abuse of digital platforms under the guise of journalism or commentary.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it is a necessary step toward curbing misinformation and reputational attacks that have become increasingly common online. They say public figures deserve legal protection from defamatory narratives that can cause lasting personal and professional damage.
Free speech advocates, however, have expressed concern about the potential chilling effect on online discourse. They warn that heavy damages could discourage investigative reporting, particularly by independent bloggers with limited resources.
The MFM founder welcomed the judgment, describing it as a victory for truth and accountability. His legal team stated that the case was never about silencing criticism but about defending integrity against false allegations.
The ruling is expected to influence future defamation cases involving digital media and may prompt bloggers to adopt stricter editorial standards to avoid legal exposure.
