The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikorodu has ordered X Corp, operator of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to disclose the identity of a user accused of manipulating and republishing a birthday post belonging to Nigerian law graduate, Esther Agboola.
Justice Adeniyi Pokanu, in a judgment delivered on June 5, 2026, held that the unauthorised alteration and republication of Agboola’s social media post violated her constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution.
The court also awarded N20 million in general damages against the unidentified X user over the alleged harm caused to Agboola.
Agboola, who uses the X handle @agirlnamed_esth, had posted photographs on January 9, 2026, to mark her 25th birthday, accompanying them with the caption, “Chapter 25. Happy Birthday to me!”
However, she told the court that another X user, identified only by the handle @_AbiolaPharays, retrieved her birthday post from January 2025, which had been published to celebrate her 24th birthday, and manipulated its timestamp.
According to her account, the alteration created a misleading impression about when the post was originally published and exposed her to public misunderstanding.
In determining the case, Justice Pokanu held that X Corp had access to information and activity logs capable of identifying the person behind the anonymous account.
The judge consequently ordered the company to file an affidavit disclosing the identity of the user operating the @_AbiolaPharays account.
The court further awarded N50 million in conditional damages against X Corp, which would become payable if the company failed, omitted or refused to comply with the disclosure order.
The judgment specifically linked the N20 million award against the first respondent to the mental anguish, emotional distress, harassment, reputational injury and humiliation allegedly suffered by Agboola as a result of the unlawful acts.
The court stated that the N50 million award against X Corp was conditional upon the platform’s failure to provide the information required by the judgment.
The ruling adds to growing legal scrutiny of anonymous activity and user-generated content on social media platforms, particularly where online posts are alleged to have infringed individuals’ privacy and reputation.
