Introduction

In the digital age, the humble Google search has evolved from a convenience into a phenomenon with profound legal implications. For Nigerians, the act of typing a query into a search engine can have consequences ranging from evidentiary weight in court proceedings to triggering data protection rights and even exposing individuals to criminal liability. The intersection of search engine technology and Nigerian law is a rapidly developing field, shaped by landmark court decisions, new legislation like the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, and the growing awareness of digital rights among citizens.

This article examines the multifaceted legal effects of Google searches and search histories within the Nigerian legal landscape, covering their role in judicial proceedings, their impact on privacy and data protection rights, and the regulatory challenges posed by the operation of Big Tech companies in Nigeria.

Part I: Google Searches and the Right to be Forgotten

Perhaps the most significant legal debate surrounding Google searches in Nigeria concerns the “Right to be Forgotten”-an individual’s ability to compel search engines to remove personal information from search results. This right, established in the European Union under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) following the landmark Google Spain v. Costeja case, has found expression in Nigeria’s data protection framework.

The Nigerian Legal Framework for Data Erasure

The Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019, issued by the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), introduced provisions akin to the GDPR’s right to erasure. Under the NDPR, data subjects can seek the deletion of their personal data in five circumstances:

1. The personal data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or processed
2. The data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based
3. The data subject objects to the processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds
4. The personal data has been unlawfully processed
5. The data must be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Nigeria

The Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 has since reinforced these protections, establishing the Nigeria Data Protection Commission and providing a more comprehensive framework for data privacy. Section 34(1)(c) of the Act gives data subjects the right to obtain from a data controller, without constraints or unreasonable delay, the correction or deletion of personal data that is inaccurate, out of date, incomplete, or misleading.

It is important to note that Section 64(2)(f) of the Act provides that all existing regulatory instruments issued by NITDA or the Nigeria Data Protection Bureau shall remain in force until they expire, are repealed, or replaced. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPR relating to the right to be forgotten remain in vogue and, together with the Act, form the legal basis for enforcement of this right in Nigeria.

Scenario 1: The Cleric’s Conviction

Consider the case of a Nigerian cleric who was convicted and imprisoned in the United Kingdom in 2015. Years after completing his sentence, he discovers that searching his name on Google returns news articles detailing his conviction. He is unable to secure employment due to employers finding this information. He believes the continued accessibility of this information infringes upon his rights to privacy and dignity.

This was precisely the situation in Hillary Ogom v. Google LLC & Anor (Suit No. IKD/3191GCM/2019), decided on 26 October 2021 by a Lagos High Court. The claimant sued Google, seeking orders to compel the search engine to erase information regarding his conviction and imprisonment from its digital platforms, including the Google Search Engine.

Google’s Defence

TEMPLARS, representing Google, advanced several compelling arguments that ultimately prevailed:

1. Google neither published nor aided the publication of the information complained of-it merely indexed content created by independent third parties.
2. Google cannot delete information published by independent internet users on third-party websites-its role is limited to providing search results linking to such content.
3. Information relating to the claimant’s conviction and imprisonment constitutes public records accessible to the general public under the common law principle of “open justice”-it does not qualify as private or personal information subject to erasure.

The Court’s Decision

The Lagos High Court dismissed the claimant’s entire case. The court agreed that the claim did not meet the legal standard for invoking the right to erasure of personal data and that the claimant had failed to demonstrate how Google’s search engine was responsible for any violation of his rights. The court also declined to make orders restricting further access to the information through the Google Search Engine.

This case demonstrates a key tension in Nigerian law: privacy rights may not supersede the public’s right to access information that is legitimately in the public domain. As one analysis noted, “information relating to crime and punishment through the judicial system is not private in nature”. The Nigerian Constitution provides that whenever a person is charged with a criminal offence, they are entitled to a fair hearing in public, and records of such trials are available to the public and search engines.

Scenario 2: The Actress and the Rumours

In a more recent development, the question of search engine liability has taken a different turn. In July 2025, a Lagos High Court delivered judgment in the case brought by Nollywood actress Adunni Ade (legal name Adunni Adewale) against Google LLC.

The Claim

The case centred on two stories that appeared on Google and YouTube. The first was captioned “How Dino Melaye used fake Patek Watch to woo and knack Actress Adunni Ade back, front and centre.” The second described her as being involved in a heated exchange with an Instagram blog after being listed among six celebrities said to have dated Melaye.

Adunni Ade argued that the continued publication of her name and photograph in connection with these stories violated her constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution and breached the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, which requires that personal data be processed in a fair, accurate, and transparent manner.

Google’s Absence

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this case was Google’s complete absence from the proceedings. Despite being served electronically by court order in December 2024, Google filed no response, sent no legal representative, and made no appearance at any stage of the hearing. The court proceeded without them.

The Court’s Decision

The court agreed with Adunni Ade, finding that Google, as the data controller, had failed to ensure that information tied to the actress was accurate and not misleading. The court awarded ₦30 million in general damages (reduced from the ₦100 million sought) and ordered Google to remove the publications from Google Search and YouTube, and directed that an apology be issued.

Comparing the Two Cases: A Note of Caution

The Adunni Ade case must be understood alongside the Hillary Ogom case. The apparent inconsistency between these outcomes may reflect the current state of Nigerian jurisprudence, which has not yet definitively settled the scope of search engine liability. However, the cases are distinguishable:

The recognition of the right to be forgotten under the NDPA 2023 “lays a better foundation for the development of the right in Nigeria than the previous regime,” and it is hoped that lawyers and litigants would take advantage of its provisions to seek reliefs when seeking erasure of their personal data in cases when it would be legally justifiable to do so.

Rights of Data Subjects Under the NDPA 2023

Beyond the right to erasure, the NDPA 2023 provides data subjects with comprehensive rights regarding their personal data, including search histories and search results:

1. Right of Access: A data subject has the right to access their data and obtain a copy of their personal data from an organisation processing it. This right can be exercised through a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR). This right “gives life to other rights such as rectification, erasure, or objection to further processing, because the data subjects first need to gain access before they can erase, rectify or object”.
2. Right to Rectification: Data subjects can request correction of inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading personal data. For example, if a school website mistakenly lists a student as a second-class honours graduate instead of first class, the student has the right to request rectification.
3. Right to Restriction of Processing: Data subjects can request restriction of further processing of their personal data while a dispute or verification request is pending. “This right may serve as an alternative option to the right for erasure”.
4. Right to Withdraw Consent: A data subject can withdraw consent at any time, and the law requires that it be easy to do so.
5. Right to Object to Processing: This is an “absolute right that allows data subjects to object to the processing of their personal data”.

These rights must be balanced against other legitimate interests, including freedom of expression and public interest. “The Nigerian courts will be invited on a continuous basis to weigh the need of the public to be aware of past information detrimental to its interest against privacy right of Data Subjects”.

Part II: Google Search Histories as Evidence in Nigerian Courts

The Admissibility Framework

The legal status of information obtained through Google searches-including search histories-as evidence in Nigerian courts is governed by the Evidence Act 2011, as amended by the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023. The Act provides the framework for the admissibility of computer-generated and electronic evidence and has been updated to reflect global technological advancements.

Section 84 of the Evidence Act

Section 84 is the principal provision governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. It establishes conditions that must be satisfied for such evidence to be admissible:

1. The computer must have been used regularly to store or process information
2. The computer must have been operating properly at the material time
3. The information must have been supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of business
4. The information must be derived from the computer’s operation

A party seeking to rely on such documents is required to show that the computer was generally in good order, and that the document was produced from information regularly supplied to the computer.

The Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023

The 2023 Amendment Act introduced significant changes that directly impact the admissibility of information from sources like Google searches and search histories:

1. Introduction of Electronic Records: The Amendment defines “electronic record” broadly as “data, record or data generated image or sound stored, received, or sent in an electronic form or microfilm”. This broad definition encompasses search histories, email records, and other digital traces.
2. Admissibility of Electronic Records: The Act allows any information statutorily required to be in writing, typewritten, or printed to be admissible if it is made available in electronic form and accessible. Such documents in electronic form shall be admissible without the need for further proof or production of the original.
3. Introduction of Digital Signatures: A “Digital Signature” is defined as an electronically generated signature attached to an electronically transmitted document to verify its contents and the sender’s identity. The Amendment enables individuals to authenticate electronic records using digital signatures, which now have the same effect as a signature appended physically on a hardcopy document.
4. Reliability Criteria: An authentication is considered reliable if it is linked to the authenticator or signatory alone and any alteration after authentication can be detected.
5. Recognition of Electronic Affidavits: The Amendment now acknowledges affidavits deposed to electronically, provided they are sworn before an appropriately authorised individual.
6. Introduction of Audio-Visual Deposition: The Amendment permits individuals to depose to affidavits via audio-visual means before a duly authorised officer, and these audio-visual affidavits are now admissible in all Nigerian courts.

Scenario 3: Search History in a Criminal Trial

Consider a scenario where a person is charged with cyberstalking under the Cybercrimes Act. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant’s Google search history showing repeated searches for the victim’s name, address, and workplace over a period of several months.

Admissibility Requirements

For this search history to be admitted as evidence, the prosecution must:

1. Authenticate the Evidence: The prosecution must prove that the search history came from the defendant’s device or account. Under the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023, a digital signature or other authentication technique can be used to prove this.
2. Comply with Section 84: The prosecution must show that the device generating the search history was operating properly and the data was produced in the ordinary course of its use. This is often done through a certificate signed by someone responsible for the device or through oral evidence.
3. Prove Relevance: The search history must be relevant to the facts in issue. In the cyberstalking example, the pattern of searches could be circumstantial evidence of intent to harass.

As the courts have emphasised, “an electronically generated document sought to be used in court as evidence without authentication or oral evidence of the maker in court… may be relevant in the proceedings but may not be admissible”.

The Perils of Relying on Google for Judicial Decisions

A South African case, S v Aliyu (A12/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 697, has highlighted the dangers of courts relying on Google searches during proceedings. In that case, a magistrate used a Google search to verify the existence of an extradition treaty between the USA and Nigeria, acting as an independent witness, which the appellate court found highly irregular and in violation of judicial impartiality and due process.

This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for Nigerian courts, underscoring that while Google can be useful for general information, it is not a verified source of legal evidence. The fundamental principle remains that courts must base decisions on evidence presented by the parties and allow all parties to respond to and challenge such evidence.

Emerging Issues in Electronic Evidence Admissibility

Nigerian courts continue to grapple with nuanced issues concerning electronic evidence. One significant question is whether bank statements qualify as computer-generated evidence requiring compliance with Section 84. In Rosehill Ltd v. GTB Plc, the Court of Appeal held that such statements are computer-generated evidence and must meticulously comply with Section 84 to be admissible.

This evolving jurisprudence suggests that as Google searches and digital evidence become more prevalent in litigation, Nigerian courts will continue to refine the rules governing their admissibility, always balancing the need for technological adaptation with fundamental principles of fairness and procedural integrity.

Part III: Google Search Histories and Criminal Liability

Cybercrime Offences Involving Google Services

The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended in 2024, criminalises various activities involving digital platforms, including Google services and search histories. Several offences directly implicate Google searches and related activities.

Section 24: Cyberstalking and Harassment

Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act prohibits the knowing transmission of communications that are grossly offensive, pornographic, or constitute cyberstalking. The Act requires proof of intent to cause harm or annoyance, and a successful prosecution must establish the mental element alongside the physical act.

Scenario 4: Search History as Evidence of Cyberstalking

Imagine a case where a victim receives threatening emails and messages over several months. The police seize the suspect’s computer and find a Google search history showing multiple searches for the victim’s:

• Full name and address
• Place of work
• Social media accounts
• Daily routines

The search history could be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the suspect’s identity and intent, even without direct evidence of the threatening messages being sent from that specific device. As the law recognises, “circumstantial evidence is proof of fact by inference from facts”.

Section 22: Fraudulent Impersonation

Section 22 of the Cybercrimes Act addresses fraudulent impersonation, including holding oneself out as another person on online platforms.

Case Example: FRN v. Imran Mujeeb Ayomide

In this case, the defendant was convicted for fraudulently impersonating “Agent Julie Ann Andrews Irs” by holding himself out as such on a Google Account, with intent to gain advantage for himself. He received a one-year prison sentence with an option of a ₦120,000 fine, and forfeited his Samsung S10 phone to the Federal Government.

A search history showing research into the person being impersonated could be critical evidence in such a case.

Scenario 5: Online Defamation and Digital Manipulation

Nigerian law recognises that deliberate manipulation online can cause real harm to reputation, business, and public order. “Defamation remains the primary civil remedy available” to victims of false statements that lower a person’s reputation among right-thinking members of society.

Civil and Criminal Remedies

On social media, “a doctored image, fake quote, or misleading post is treated the same as a defamatory newspaper article.” To succeed in court, a claimant would need to prove that the statement was false, that it referred to them, and that it was published to third parties. “Truth is a complete defence, which means the law balances protection of reputation with freedom of expression”.

Beyond civil action, criminal law also applies through the Cybercrimes Act. Section 24 makes it an offence to knowingly send or publish material that is false, with the intent to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, or injury. “A conviction can lead to fines, imprisonment, or both”.

Evidence Requirements

Evidence is critical in both civil and criminal cases. “Courts and investigators will require proof of the original content, evidence of manipulation, records of publication, and proof of harm you suffered. Preserving digital evidence, including timestamps and metadata, will strengthen your case”.

A Google search history showing that the defendant searched for information about the victim, or accessed pages containing defamatory content, could be relevant evidence.

Defensive Strategies in Cybercrime Cases

Defending against cybercrime allegations involving Google searches and related activities requires careful strategic consideration:

1. Challenging the Elements of the Offence: Each cybercrime offence has specific elements that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, Section 24 offences require proof of intent to cause harm or annoyance, not merely the existence of the message.
2. Constitutional Protections: The 1999 Constitution provides safeguards against overreach, including freedom of expression under Section 39 and the right to fair hearing under Section 36.
3. Forensic Challenges: The prosecution must establish a proper chain of custody and demonstrate the integrity of digital evidence. The defence can demand independent forensic analysis and cite the Evidence Act 2011, particularly Section 84, governing the admissibility of electronic evidence.
4. Procedural Irregularities: Many cybercrime prosecutions are characterised by arrests without proper warrants, confiscation of devices without court orders, and denial of access to legal counsel-all of which are grounds for challenging the admissibility of evidence.

Part IV: Regulating Big Tech in Nigeria

The Regulatory Framework

The operation of international tech giants like Google in Nigeria is governed by a complex regulatory framework:

• Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023: The principal legislation on data privacy, establishing the Nigeria Data Protection Commission and compliance obligations for data controllers and processors.
• Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024): Addresses offences committed through digital means, including those involving Google services.
• National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007: Empowers NITDA to issue regulations like the NDPR.
• Nigerian Communications Commission Regulations: Provides additional oversight of digital communications.

The Nigeria Data Protection Commission

The NDPA 2023 establishes the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), which is “responsible for the implementation of the NDPA and has powers to issue fines, and carry out searches and seizures among others, upon obtaining a warrant from a Judge”. This addresses the previous criticism that the Nigeria Data Protection Bureau lacked statutory backing to legitimately enforce data protection laws.

Enforcement Challenges

Despite this regulatory framework, Nigeria faces significant challenges in regulating Big Tech companies:

1. Jurisdictional Limitations: International tech giants often operate from foreign jurisdictions, complicating enforcement efforts. The Adunni Ade case demonstrated this-Google simply did not appear in Nigerian court.
2. Regulatory Overlaps: Multiple agencies (NDPC, NITDA, NCC) have overlapping regulatory responsibilities, creating confusion and gaps in enforcement.
3. Low Public Awareness: Many Nigerians are unaware of their data protection rights and how to assert them against powerful technology companies.
4. Non-Compliance: As demonstrated in the Adunni Ade case, international tech companies may fail to appear in Nigerian courts, requiring judgment in their absence.

Balancing Public Interest and Privacy

The Nigerian courts have consistently emphasised the need to balance privacy rights against public interest considerations. As the Hillary Ogom case demonstrates, where information relates to criminal convictions and public records, the scales may tip in favour of public access.

The UK case of NT1 and NT2 v. Google provides useful guidance: “The court opined that the information continued to be relevant to the assessment of the claimant by members of the public, even after he served his conviction term, by reason of his business activities”. This suggests that for public figures or individuals with ongoing public relevance, courts may be reluctant to uphold the right to be forgotten.

Part V: Practical Guidance for Nigerians

Protecting Your Search History Rights

1. Know Your Rights: Under the NDPA 2023, you have the right to access, correct, and request erasure of your personal data, including your search history.
2. Exercise Your Rights: Submit a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to organisations processing your data. You can request a copy of your search history from Google, and request deletion where appropriate.
3. Be Realistic: The Hillary Ogom case shows that the right to erasure is not absolute. Where information is a matter of public record (such as court convictions), deletion may not be ordered.
4. Preserve Evidence: If you are involved in litigation, ensure proper preservation of digital evidence, including timestamps and metadata. These can be crucial for authentication.

Preserving Digital Evidence for Litigation

Given the importance of digital evidence in modern litigation, the following practices are recommended:

1. Document Everything: Keep records of searches, communications, and online activities that may be relevant to legal proceedings.
2. Preserve Metadata: Timestamps, IP addresses, and other metadata can be crucial for authentication under the Evidence Act.
3. Maintain Chain of Custody: Ensure that digital evidence is properly handled and documented to avoid challenges to its admissibility.
4. Seek Expert Assistance: Given the technical complexities of digital evidence, engage forensic experts where necessary.

Conclusion

The legal effects of Google searches and search histories in Nigeria encompass a spectrum of considerations, from evidentiary admissibility to data protection rights and criminal liability. The Nigerian legal system is progressively adapting to the digital age, with the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023 and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 providing important frameworks for these emerging issues.

Landmark cases like Hillary Ogom v. Google have established that the Right to be Forgotten faces significant hurdles in Nigeria, particularly where the information concerns public records and where Google merely indexes content published by third parties. However, the Adunni Ade case demonstrates that search engine liability may be established where the data is inaccurate, misleading, and the search engine fails to appear to defend itself.

For individuals, the dual nature of Google searches presents both opportunities and risks. While Google searches can provide powerful evidence in legal proceedings, they can also expose individuals to criminal prosecution or challenge their privacy rights. The increasing recognition of electronic evidence under Nigerian law has expanded the possibilities for litigants, but courts must exercise caution in relying on unverified information obtained through search engines.

As Nigeria continues to engage with the digital economy, the legal framework governing Google searches and other online activities will undoubtedly continue to evolve, balancing individual rights with the realities of the information age.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for advice on specific legal matters.