By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Femi Falana, has instituted a $5,000,000 (Five Million US Dollars) lawsuit before a Lagos High Court against Meta Platforms Inc., the U.S.-based tech giant owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over alleged invasion of his privacy

In the originating motion brought pursuant to Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and section 24(1)(A) and (E) & Section 34(1)(D) of Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, Order 2 Rule 1 Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009, by his lawyer, Olumide Babalola, the human rights Lawyer accused the organization of publishing motion images and voice captioned, “AfriCare Health Center,” in their website to the effect that Falana has suffered a disease known as ‘Prostatitis’, which the lawyer claimed constitutes an invasion of his privacy as guaranteed by section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Falana claimed the publication and the video as released through the organization’s platform -www.facebook.com, is “false, inaccurate, misleading and unfair to the Applicant and thereby violates the provision of section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023

To this end, the reputable lawyer was praying the court for a declaration that the “Respondents continued publication of the Applicants name, still and motion images and purported voice on a page and video captioned “AfriCare Health Centre on their platform – www.facebook.com to the effect that the Applicant suffered from a disease known as ‘Prostatitis constitutes an invasion of the Applicants privacy guaranteed by section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”

Besides, he is praying the court for an order mandating the “Respondents to forthwith remove, erase and delete the video captioned “AfriCare Health Centre on their platform – www.facebook.com.”

For the damages the publication has caused him, Falana, was asking for a general damages in the sum of $5, 000, 000 (Five Million US Dollars) and a consequential order that the court may deem fit to grant in the circumstance.

Falana who claimed that the published false video about his health status, which is his private life has rubished his image and the name he built over the years.

He argued that the publication by the Respondent which is false, offensive and disturbing paints him in a false light, that has caused him mental and emotional disturbances.

The grounds upon which the originating processes was instituted was that the Applicant as a reputable person is guaranteed the enjoyment of fundamental right to privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and that the Respondents published the Applicants name and images and ascribed a false illness to him and thereby violated his right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution and Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and he has suffered emotional and psychological distress as a result of the false story

In the affidavit in support of the motion, Falana claimed that he is known for his fearless legal battles, often taking on cases against government policies and actions that infringe upon the rights of citizens and that his law practice covers a broad range of areas, including constitutional law, civil rights, public interest litigation, and international human rights law.

He said further that he is recognized for his work in defending freedom of expression, advocating for the rights of marginalized groups, and challenging governmental overreach.

He alleged that the Respondent is a media company operating a global social media platform known as www.facebook.com. and that on the 16th day of January 2025, he discovered a video of his person was posted on the Respondent’s platform under the page named “AfriCare Health Centre on Respondent’s platform – www.facebook.com. which he tendered as an Exhibit in the suit.

He noted: “In video that carries my name, picture and purported video, I am reported to have said that: “My name is Femi Falana, and I have been battling prostatitis for over 16 years. At the age of 50, I was diagnosed with this condition. Every day I faced pain, discomfort and constant fatigue. I had trouble urinating lower back pain and other symptoms that made it difficult to live a full life.

Despite consulting the best urologist in the country, no one could offer me effective treatment, I was prescribed numerous medications, physical therapy even surgery but the problem was that these methods only temporarily relived the symptoms.”

He bemoaned the wrongful publication that he has been greatly prejudiced by the video of the Respondent’s on the grounds that his health life is part of his private life and he has never suffered any disease known as ‘Prostatitis’ in his life.

He averred that, “I have never had any dealing with the Respondent or its pages on issues with my health life.
The video and its contents are false, inaccurate, misleading and unfair to me. The video paints me in a false light and as such an invasion of my privacy.”

He claimed that the Respondent operates global platforms and anything published on these platforms are accessed and viewed by millions of people around the world. Hence, the stories have been viewed by millions of people since January 2023 when they were published on the Respondents platforms.

He said, “For the purpose of this suit, I do not find these stories libelous but since they are false and fabricated against me, I find them offensive, reckless, insensitive, disturbing and unjustifiable intrusion into my privacy by painting me in a false light.

“By the video, the Respondent’s page has given me a publicity that paints me in false light as the insinuations in the video are false and they infringe my right to privacy right to be let alone.

“At the time of deposing to this affidavit, the video has been published to the entire world on the Internet, and it has remained there for several weeks.

“For their failure to verify the page and video before publishing, I believe the Respondent’s publicity of my name and image in a false light was done carelessly and recklessly to draw traffic to the Respondent’s platform to boost its advertisement revenues.

“I believe that the Respondents use of my name and image in the video is unfair and insensitive to my feelings since they never verified the claims as expected.

“I find the Respondents’ publicity of my photograph and name in a false light highly offensive and emotionally disturbing. This continues to cause me anxiety, sadness and exposure to ridicule.”

He therefore prayed the court for a rescue and save his image from being ruined.