Peter B. Ogbobine, Esq.15 July 2026
More than four centuries after Sir Francis Bacon declared that “Knowledge is power,” former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave the maxim a democratic dimension when he observed: “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating.” Together, these two maxims remind us that while knowledge empowers individuals, access to truthful information empowers societies and strengthens democracy.
Transparency through the dissemination of relevant information remains one of democracy’s defining principles. In earlier times, government policies reached citizens through gazettes, newspapers, newsletters and the ubiquitous AM radio – there was no FM radio. Access even to these channels was limited, as not everyone could read or afford them; newspaper vendors often ran “readers’ corners” where citizens could vet the day’s papers at little or no cost. Beyond these channels was the crude but effective “word of mouth” – or, in local parlance, “dem say.” Even then, information travelled remarkably fast; the only difference was that someone had to walk, board a molue, or jump into a bolekaja to spread it.
Today, the digital revolution has changed everything. Through the World Wide Web and platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X, information moves almost instantaneously. Every smartphone owner is now a potential publisher. Governments can communicate directly with millions of citizens, while citizens can scrutinise government actions in real time.
However, the same technology that spreads truth also amplifies falsehood. Misinformation, disinformation, manipulated videos and outright fabrications now circulate at astonishing speed. Falsehood often travels supersonic while truth arrives on a delayed Arik flight. The old saying that “bad news travels fast” has acquired a digital mutation: fake news travels even faster.
The need for accurate information is therefore fundamental to democracy. While Hosea 4:6 (“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”) speaks primarily of spiritual knowledge, its wisdom resonates equally in public governance. Citizens suffer when those entrusted with authority fail to provide timely, accurate and reliable information. Democracy flourishes only when citizens are sufficiently informed to make reasoned choices.
In Nigeria, this principle finds legal expression in Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive information, and in the Freedom of Information Act 2011, which affirms that public information belongs to the people except where legitimate exemptions apply. Transparency is not an act of governmental generosity; it is a constitutional and statutory obligation. It is in this sense that Kofi Annan aptly remarked, “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating.”
That constitutional guarantee, however, has never been a licence for digital irresponsibility. As communication migrated online, the law evolved to address abuses committed through electronic platforms. Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 criminalises certain forms of knowingly false electronic communication intended to cause annoyance, injury, intimidation, hatred or needless anxiety.
This brings us to the central theme of this discourse: government has a duty to disseminate accurate information, and citizens have a corresponding duty not to spread falsehood. The journalistic maxim “verify before you publish” is no longer reserved for reporters and editors; it applies equally to every citizen with a smartphone, capturing the tension between the speed of digital news and the necessity of fact-checking.
Fake information is not confined to politics. Every day, social media circulates fabricated stories about all sorts of things and people. Friendships have been broken, businesses have suffered, and reputations destroyed because someone forwarded an unverified message.
Social media influencers, by virtue of their vast audiences, bear an even greater responsibility. Influence should be exercised with diligence rather than merely for popularity. Recent examples abound. Premium Times reported on 5 July 2026 that the Lagos State Government accused influencers of spreading false flood images, vowing legal action after one falsely claimed a flood video was filmed in Lagos when it had actually originated in Bangladesh (Daily Post, 14/7/26). Likewise, recycled rumours claimed Belgian footballer Jeremy Doku was divorcing his wife after a DNA test allegedly showed he was not the father of his newborn son – a story basic fact-checking would have traced back to former Chelsea player Geremi Njitap years earlier. You can imagine the emotional and psychological stress it has caused the Dokus.
When government fails to provide timely and accurate information, it creates a vacuum in which conspiracy theories and sensationalism flourish. Citizens who consistently receive prompt, reliable official information are far less susceptible to the “na-me-first-tell-you” syndrome that dominates social media.
Nevertheless, democracy imposes reciprocal obligations. In the past, the “word of mouth” method was slow and locally contained; its damage was limited. Today, a single unverified post can incite panic, crash stock markets, or trigger communal violence within hours. Section 39 guarantees the freedom to express opinions; it does not constitutionalise the freedom to invent facts. Every citizen who forwards an unverified message, circulates a fabricated story or shares a manipulated video becomes, knowingly or unknowingly, a participant in public deception.
Perhaps no phrase has caused greater social injury than those innocent-looking words: “Forwarded as received.” It has become the most popular legal disclaimer never recognised by any court of law. It neither absolves the sender of responsibility nor converts fiction into fact – Section 24 criminalises the act of sending false messages regardless of whether the sender appends a disclaimer. A lie remains a lie even when forwarded with prayer emojis.
There is a certain irony in watching citizens demand absolute transparency from government while simultaneously forwarding obviously false memes and recycled videos. The same individual who invokes Section 39 of the Constitution may, moments later, share footage of a giant snake swallowing a human being in Lagos, despite the video having originated elsewhere years earlier. The Constitution grants us the freedom to speak, but it does not grant us the freedom to speak nonsense and call it news. Section 39 is, in spirit, a two-edged sword: government must communicate openly, and citizens must communicate truthfully.
On countless occasions, I have found myself engaged in debates over social media posts that were patently false, defended by some only because they aligned with political loyalties or personal prejudices. Many of these narratives are driven by sensationalism, partisanship and the irresistible wish to be first to break the news, or perhaps a desire to malign government – because criticising government is one of the nation’s favourite pastimes. For some, WhatsApp forwards have become a form of secular scripture: if a message has been forwarded many times, it must surely be true.
Governments, however, must also exercise restraint. Not every criticism is fake news. Not every uncomfortable revelation is misinformation. The Act must not be used to gag citizens or suppress legitimate criticism of government.
The Book of Proverbs 24:5 declares: “A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength.” This is the scriptural twin of Bacon’s “knowledge is power.” Wisdom is the ability to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of falsehood. A citizen who spreads fake news is weak in judgment and civic responsibility. A government that hoards information is equally unwise, for it weakens the very people it claims to serve.
Ultimately, democracy is sustained not merely by the right to speak but by the duty to speak truthfully. Government must communicate promptly, honestly and transparently, while citizens must verify before they broadcast. One without the other breeds confusion.
The digital age arguably requires, more than ever, the application of the Socrates triple filter test before sending the information, ask three questions: Is it true, is it good, and is it useful?
Truth: Are you sure the information is completely true?
Goodness: Is the information kind and positive, and does it avoid causing hurt?
Usefulness: Will the information actually benefit the person receiving it?
If the information fails all three tests, Socrates says you should not listen to or share it at all. Otherwise, you bi “amebo” and the original “tatafo” .
Only then does Sir Francis Bacon’s timeless maxim attain its fullest democratic meaning: “Knowledge is power – but only verified knowledge empowers a free people” .
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are intended for public discourse and commentary. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such.
