Every year from 25th November to 10th December, the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence invites the world to look again at how violence is changing and to renew commitments to end it. In recent years, the focus on digital violence has made it clear that what happens on screens is now part of the main field of struggle, not a side story. In Nigeria, this is easy to see. Social media and messaging apps are where women work, trade, organise, express themselves and build community, but they are also spaces where they are threatened, exposed, shamed and pushed into silence.
This article looks at how that harm plays out, how Nigerian law responds and why these gaps add up to what I call a “silence tax”, the hidden cost women pay to stay safe online.
Digital abuse in Nigeria takes many forms. It includes non-consensual sharing of intimate images, sexual blackmail, threats in private messages, impersonation, doctored photos, abusive comment threads and partners demanding passwords or access to private chats. In 2021, Tiwa Savage, a famous Nigerian Musician, revealed that she was being blackmailed over a sex video involving herself and her partner, and when she refused to pay, the clip was leaked online[1].Despite being a public figure with lawyers and resources, she faced heavy moral judgement and gossip rather than clear recognition that her privacy and dignity had been violated. In May 2025, a woman in Anambra had her own intimate video with a married man go viral, and members of the Umuada reportedly attempted to publicly confront her for “disgracing motherhood”, turning the woman whose privacy was breached into the main target of punishment[2]. Across entertainment platforms there have been cases where men record sexual encounters and share or threaten to share them to grow their following, while the women involved are left to carry stigma, fear and shame. In all these examples, digital exposure quickly becomes a public trial where women absorb most of the blame and those who record, leak and amplify the content often escape serious consequences.
For women who are already marginalised the harm is even sharper. A queer woman who posts a simple photo can be threatened with “outing” to family or employers. A woman with a disability who speaks about her rights can find her body edited into cruel memes or mocked in group chats. A young woman from a low-income area who expresses a political opinion can be insulted, threatened and dragged in long comment threads. These attacks spill into offline life, affecting safety, mental health, work and relationships. Over time many women try to protect themselves by shrinking their online presence, posting less, avoiding their own photos, leaving debates to others or deleting accounts altogether. This is the silence tax: the extra emotional and practical cost women pay just to exist online. Each small adjustment seems reasonable on its own, but taken together they push women out of public conversations and limit whose stories and priorities shape policy, culture and democracy.
Nigeria has laws that touch on online behaviour, but they were not written with this kind of gendered digital harm at the centre. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 is often treated as the main law for online offences[3]. Section 24 deals with cyberstalking and prohibits messages that are obscene, grossly offensive, indecent, menacing or sent to cause annoyance, intimidation, hatred or ill will[4]. Section 22 addresses identity theft and impersonation[5], while sections 14 and 16 criminalise computer related forgery and unlawful access to data[6]. These provisions are useful when abuse takes the form of direct threats, impersonation or hacking. But the Act does not name or define technology assisted gender-based violence, does not criminalise non consensual sharing of intimate images and does not mention platforms that circulate leaked sexual content as routine “engagement”.
The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 applies in the Federal Capital Territory and in states that have domesticated it[7] and recognises a wide range of non-physical violence.[8] It defines emotional, verbal and psychological abuse as conduct that seriously harms a person’s mental wellbeing[9], and criminalises intimidation, coercion, economic abuse and harmful cultural practices[10]. This framework is important, but it was drafted with offline violence in mind and does not reference digital activity, deepfakes, image based abuse or the rapid spread of leaked material online. Without explicit language, survivors encounter uneven or dismissive responses when they try to report digital abuse.
These gaps in the law appear clearly in practice. In Tiwa Savage’s case, the focus shifted to her behaviour rather than the blackmail and non-consensual distribution she faced. In the Anambra case, community outrage centred on the woman whose privacy was violated rather than the person who recorded and circulated the video. Across Nigeria, survivors are routinely advised to block their abusers, log off social media or “settle privately”, shifting responsibility back onto the women affected. For a queer woman being threatened with exposure or a market woman whose video has spread among neighbours and customers, logging out does nothing to repair the damage.
For women already on the margins before any video or screenshot leaked, the law’s silence combines with class, stigma and social control to create harsher outcomes. A queer woman dealing with digital blackmail faces not just cyberstalking but the risk of “outing” in an unsafe environment. A woman with a disability who becomes a meme may struggle to get authorities to see the harm as real. A widowed market trader whose former partner posts her intimate photos may lack access to cybercrime units or legal support.
The way social media platforms are designed and enforced also shapes these experiences. When moderation teams do not understand Nigerian languages and context, abusive content aimed at women is more likely to slip through and stay online. Reporting systems may be slow or unclear. Channels that share leaked videos can operate openly without immediate removal. In a country where many women cannot count on fast or sensitive police action, platform decisions about what to allow and how quickly to respond form part of the safety net, and when that net is weak the harm spreads wider.
All of this affects public life. Social media is now a major space where Nigerians debate politics, share information during crises, organise around issues and tell stories about gender-based violence, police brutality, corruption, fuel prices and climate impacts. When women face disproportionate abuse for being visible online, many reduce their participation or disappear from these spaces. The result is a public conversation dominated by male voices and filtered through social and cultural silence.
Responding to this reality requires legal and practical reforms. The Cybercrimes Act should be amended to include a clear offence for non consensual sharing of intimate images and other forms of image-based abuse, and to give guidance on digitally facilitated sexual violence and persistent gender targeted harassment. The VAPP framework should be interpreted, and if necessary amended, to explicitly include digital abuse within emotional, verbal and psychological violence, with examples such as sharing sex videos without consent, posting edited intimate images, doxxing and coordinated harassment. Police and prosecutors need practical guidelines on evidence collection, digital reporting and survivor centred procedures.
On the practical side, law enforcement requires training on digital harm and evidence preservation. Social media companies should invest more in Nigerian language moderation, faster takedowns and firmer action against accounts that distribute leaked intimate material. Civil society organisations, including Lex Initiative, can expand digital safety education for young women, queer women, women with disabilities and women in low-income communities.
Digital spaces are now woven into daily life in Nigeria. Violence that happens through a screen is part of the same chain of harm that laws like the VAPP Act were created to interrupt. Recognising digital violence as real violence is essential if women are to participate fully and safely in public life. Her Voice, No Filter is more than a campaign line; it is a reminder that no woman should have to pay a silence tax just to exist online.
About the author:
Green C Oge-Ali is a Lawyer and the Programs Manager at Lex Initiative, working on gender justice and the rights of women and minority groups. She is also the Founder of Verdant Juris Firm and a Partner at NexusADR LLP.
REFERENCES:
1.BBC News, ‘Nigeria’s Tiwa Savage reveals sex tape blackmail’ (8 October 2021) www. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58844381
2. Linda Ikeji’s Blog, ‘Anambra umuada members stopped from attacking woman whose sex tape with a married man went viral’ (25 May 2025) https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2025/5/anambra-umuada-members-stopped-from-attacking-woman-whose-s3x-t-at-pe-with-a-married-man-went-viral-2.html
3. Nigeria, Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
4. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, s 24.
5. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, s 22.
6. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, ss 14, 16.
7. VAPP Tracker https://www.partnersnigeria.org/vapp-tracker/
8. Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015.
9. Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 46. 10. Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) A
[1] BBC News, ‘Nigeria’s Tiwa Savage reveals sex tape blackmail’ (8 October 2021) www. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58844381 accessed 20th, Nov 2025.
[2] Linda Ikeji’s Blog, ‘Anambra umuada members stopped from attacking woman whose sex tape with a married man went viral’ (25 May 2025) https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2025/5/anambra-umuada-members-stopped-from-attacking-woman-whose-s3x-t-at-pe-with-a-married-man-went-viral-2.html accessed 20th Nov, 2025.
[3] Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
[4] Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, s 24.
[5] Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, s 22.
[6] Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, ss 14, 16.
[7] VAPP Tracker https://www.partnersnigeria.org/vapp-tracker/ accessed 21st Nov 2025.
[8] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015.
[9] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 46.
[10] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, ss 2–3.