A joke can last a few minutes. A video on the internet can last forever.

A stranger stages a robbery, records a terrified victim’s reaction, and uploads the video for thousands of people to watch. Another creator secretly films a private conversation or engineers an embarrassing “loyalty test” for social media engagement. Or imagine walking down the street when someone suddenly approaches you, stages a frightening situation, and secretly records your reaction. When challenged, the explanation is familiar: “Relax, it was just a prank.”

You may laugh about it afterwards. You may even appreciate the joke. But what happens when that video is uploaded to social media without your consent, and thousands or even millions of people begin watching, sharing, and commenting on your reaction?

This is the reality of modern social media. But describing an act as entertainment does not automatically excuse its consequences. Where a prank violates privacy, damages a reputation, or causes injury, the person responsible may face legal liability.

Social media has created valuable opportunities for creative expression and income. Those opportunities come with responsibilities towards the people whose faces, voices, and personal experiences become content.

Privacy remains a constitutional right

Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, guarantees the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence and specified communications. Although this protection is subject to lawful limitations, the desire to attract views or earn advertising revenue does not, by itself, justify an intrusion.

Secretly filming someone in a private setting, exposing intimate information or publishing an intrusive recording may raise serious privacy concerns. Each situation requires attention to its circumstances: what was recorded, where it happened, what the person reasonably expected, and how the recording was used.

There is a significant difference between agreeing to participate in a prank and agreeing to have your reaction broadcast to the public.

Under Nigeria’s data-protection framework, consent is an important lawful basis for processing personal data, although the law also recognizes other lawful bases in appropriate circumstances. The NDPC further recognizes the right of a data subject to give, withhold or withdraw consent, subject to applicable law.

This means that content creators should not treat consent as a minor detail that can simply be addressed after a video has gone viral.

Consent should be considered before publication, not after the damage has been done. Being in a public place does not automatically give a content creator unrestricted permission to exploit someone’s image or personal information.

Recording and publishing raise separate questions

An identifiable person’s image or voice can constitute personal data. Recording, storing and publishing that material may therefore engage the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

The Act requires a lawful basis for processing personal data. Consent is one basis, but it is not the only one. Legitimate interests may also apply, subject to statutory safeguards, including the individual’s overriding rights and reasonable expectations. A creator’s wish to monetize a video does not automatically satisfy those requirements.

Where consent is relied upon, it must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. Agreement to participate should not simply be treated as unrestricted permission to publish. Nor does permission obtained after filming automatically cure an earlier unlawful act. See the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, particularly sections 24–26.

The harm can outlast the joke

A frightening or humiliating prank can affect a person long after the camera stops recording. Possible consequences include emotional distress, damaged relationships, reputational harm, physical injury and financial loss.

Online publication can intensify that harm. Even after the original video is deleted, copies, screenshots and reposts may continue circulating.

The conduct may also raise issues beyond privacy. Depending on the facts and applicable law, unwanted physical contact, threats, property damage or false allegations may support separate civil claims or criminal investigation. Liability depends on the conduct and the legal requirements of the relevant claim or offence.

What affected individuals can do

Anyone affected by an intrusive or harmful prank should consider these practical steps:

• Preserve evidence: Save the video, web links, account details, screenshots, messages and publication dates. Keep records of any injury or financial loss.
• Request removal: Ask the creator to remove the content and report it through the platform’s privacy or abuse channels.
• Consider a regulatory complaint: A personal-data complaint may be submitted to the Nigeria Data Protection Commission.
• Seek legal advice: Depending on the circumstances, available measures may include fundamental-rights proceedings, an injunction, compensation or a report to law enforcement.

The Act provides for complaints to the Commission and a civil remedy for qualifying injury, loss or harm. The appropriate route depends on the evidence and the nature of the violation. See sections 46 and 51.

For creators, a safer approach is to use willing participants, explain intended publication clearly and avoid scenarios involving threats, unwanted contact or foreseeable injury.

At Lyons and Eagles Attorneys, we believe creative expression should respect individual rights. A successful video should never depend on treating another person’s privacy, dignity or safety as expendable.

Concerned about an intrusive recording or harmful prank? Contact Lyons and Eagles Attorneys to discuss your circumstances and available legal options.