LIABILITY FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IN NIGERIA: THE NEED TO HOLD PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE.
Nigeria’s digitized economy has transformed the internet into a powerful tool for commerce, communication, and social engagement. However, alongside these advancements, the digital space has become a fertile ground for several sophisticated fraudulent schemes.
Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a person deliberately misinforms another person or group of persons of certain facts or state of affairs while knowing fully well that the facts or state of affairs are false with the intention to influence the decision, action, or inaction of the other person or group of persons.
Common manifestations include romance scams, fake investment opportunities, phishing operations, and the exploitation of public sympathy through crowdfunding for fabricated medical emergencies, and even false claims to being victims of some form of sexual abuse. Beyond illicit financial gain, such conduct undermines public trust and weakens confidence in legitimate charitable appeals and calls for justice.
While Misrepresentation typically occurs in contractual arrangements, bargains, and private communications, the recent growth of electronic communication and the wide scope of viewership have extended its scope beyond private communications to commentaries and publications across social media.
A recent and widely discussed controversy involving influencer Blessing Okoro, popularly known as Blessing CEO, illustrates the type of conduct that may give rise to both criminal and civil liability for fraudulent misrepresentation under Nigerian law. In early 2026, Blessing CEO publicly claimed to have been diagnosed with stage-four breast cancer. She shared what appeared to be a medical report, discussed treatment costs, including chemotherapy, and appealed for financial assistance from members of the public. Donations reportedly totaled approximately ₦13 million, with some unverified reports suggesting a higher figure.
Subsequently, allegations emerged that the medical reports circulating online had been doctored. A cancer survivor, Deborah Mbara, publicly alleged that her genuine medical report was requested “for comparison” and later altered with changes to names, dates, and hospital details before being circulated as belonging to Blessing CEO.
The Delta State chapter of the Nigerian Medical Association reportedly indicated that the document in circulation did not belong to Blessing CEO but to Deborah Mbara. Blessing CEO who described the stage-four cancer claim as a “miscommunication,” maintained that she suffers from some form of cancer, while she declined to publicly release her medical records, citing privacy concerns, and rejected calls for an apology or refunds.
While these developments remain allegations pending formal investigation and judicial determination, they provide a useful background to appraising the legal principles governing fraudulent misrepresentation in Nigeria and the procedural requirements necessary to activate enforcement mechanisms.
Statutory Regulation of Fraudulent Misrepresentation
The Nigerian law contains several statutory provisions designed to address fraudulent misrepresentation conducted through electronic platforms. Section 14(2) Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended) criminalizes electronic communications that materially misrepresent facts with the intent to cause loss or damage. The provision states:
“Any person who with intent to defraud sends electronic message materially misrepresents any fact or set of facts upon which reliance the recipient or another person is caused to suffer any damage or loss, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and to a fine of not less than N10,000,000.00 or to both fine and imprisonment”.
Where false claims are
disseminated via social media accompanied by allegedly forged documents and appeals for financial support, such conduct may fall within the scope of this provision, provided the requisite elements of misrepresentation, intent, and resulting loss are established. Where documentary falsification is proven, additional offences relating to forgery under the Criminal Code or Penal Code may also arise.
The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 further strengthens the legal response to fraudulent conduct.
Section 1(1) criminalizes obtaining property by pretense with intent to defraud, including through electronic communication. Upon conviction, penalties may range from seven to twenty years’ imprisonment, often without the option of a fine. Instructive is Section 11 of the Act, which mandates restitution to victims, reinforcing the principle that criminal sanctions should be accompanied by financial recovery for affected parties.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) serves as the primary enforcement agency for financial crimes and, as emphasized in several official statements, investigations are typically triggered upon receipt of a formal petition or complaint from an aggrieved party or interested stakeholder. However, by the community reading of the enabling Laws, the EFCC’s investigating authority does not necessarily require the making of a formal complaint or a petition before they can commence investigation, especially where the person in question has made several publications online admitting to making false publications.
Independent of criminal proceedings, victims may pursue civil remedies for deceit. To establish deceit under the Nigerian legal system, a claimant must prove:
1. A false representation of fact, for example, the circulation of an allegedly falsified medical report or inaccurate medical diagnosis.
2. Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth, the representation must be made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly. The alleged acts of Blessing CEO falsifying medical records make it deducible that she had knowledge of their falsity and had a disregard for the truth.
3. Intent to induce reliance: The defendant must intend that others act upon the false representation. Blessing CEO’s act of shaving off her hair whilst not undergoing chemotherapy is also indicative of her intention to induce reliance on her claims of cancer.
4. Actual reliance by the claimant: Victims must demonstrate that they relied on the representation in making financial contributions.
5. Resulting damage
Potential evidence may include screenshots of social media posts, donation receipts, electronic transfers, forensic document analysis, and expert testimony. In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Available remedies include restitution, compensatory damages, and, in appropriate cases, aggravated damages.
In conclusion, where a person allegedly makes fraudulent representations online, particularly in cases involving fabricated medical emergencies used to solicit financial support, the legal consequences under Nigerian law are significant. Criminal liability may result in imprisonment, fines, and mandatory restitution, while civil proceedings offer an avenue for financial recovery by victims.
Although Nigeria’s legal framework provides clear mechanisms for addressing such misconduct, effective enforcement depends on timely petitions, thorough investigation, and judicial determination. The referenced controversy serves as a timely reminder of the need for procedural diligence and decisive institutional action where credible evidence suggests deliberate misrepresentation. The timely prosecution will equally serve as a deterent to other social media users while reinforcing the limit to social media influencing.
Disclaimer:
This opinion is provided for general guidance and publication purposes only. It does not constitute a finding of guilt against any individual. Determination of liability remains the exclusive responsibility of competent courts of law.
Kamarudeen O. Abdullahi, Esq.
Associate II, Unit Head, Litigation, Election Petition, and Dispute Resolution (LED)
Blessing Emeka-Ogbor, Esq. LL.
Associate, Litigation, Election Petition, and Dispute Resolution (LED)