By CHRISTY DIKE AND LONGDANG ZUNGKAT

Some lawyers in Abuja have decried the absence of a clear legal framework for Nigerian content creators saying they operate within a legal grey area due to lack of dedicated statutory regulations.

Speaking in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) on Monday, the lawyers said skit makers were more guilty due to this lack of a clear legal framework.

Mr Amaujor Temple told NAN that skit making was not specifically classified under Nigerian law, but was generally treated as audio-visual content creation within the broader entertainment industry.

He said such content was indirectly regulated under existing laws, including the National Film and Video Censors Board Act and the Copyright Act 2022.

He said that Nigeria’s regulatory system was largely designed before the rise of short-form online platforms, leaving significant gaps in enforcement and classification.

“There are clear lacunae because most Nigerian media laws were enacted before the explosion of short-form platforms.

“The regulatory regime is still largely built around traditional film and broadcast, leaving user-generated content in a grey area,” he said.

Temple added that platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube were not governed by specific platform-based legislation, but were instead indirectly covered under cybercrime laws, defamation principles and general broadcasting guidelines.

On enforcement, he said regulatory action against skit makers remained selective and reactive, usually triggered only when content attracted public outrage or clearly violated existing laws such as obscenity or incitement.

The lawyer further stated that while satire was recognised under Nigerian jurisprudence, it was not absolute, stressing that courts draw the line where content amounted to defamation, incitement or obscenity.

He also said that skit makers were subject to defamation laws, cybercrime provisions and public morality laws, including the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, which criminalises offensive or false online publications.

According to him, Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but allows limitations in the interest of public order, morality and the rights of others.

The lawyer warned that prank-based content posed additional legal risks, including assault, harassment, defamation and invasion of privacy, especially where unsuspecting individuals were filmed without consent.

According to him, while there is a need for clearer regulation, any new framework must be carefully balanced to avoid stifling creativity in one of Nigeria’s fastest-growing creative sectors.

He added that lessons from countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America showed that the most effective approach was to regulate harmful content while preserving creative freedom.

Another lawyer, Mr Kenubeh Gontul also agreed that Nigerian content creators and skit-makers operated without a dedicated legal framework, leaving liability and enforcement unresolved.

Gontul said that the Copyright Act of 2022 recognised audiovisual works as eligible for protection, bringing skits within the sphere of creative works.

“The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, and Section 2 of the Copyright Act recognises audiovisual works as eligible for copyright protection,’’ he said.

According to him, skit-making can be classified as broadcast or internet media content and can fall under the National Film and Video Censors Board, depending on content and distribution.

“The majority of current regulations were created prior to the proliferation of short-form digital platforms,” he said.

Gontul explained social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook were only partially covered by existing laws.

“The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention) Act 2015 addresses online misconduct such as cyberstalking under Section 24, but does not directly regulate content creation models,” Gontul said.

He further said that enforcement was limited because skit makers often published straight to social media without submitting their work for classification.

“Due to volume and technology limitations, proactive monitoring of individual skit creators is restricted.

“Regulatory action usually takes place in response to public complaints or viral issues,” Gontul added.

According to him, freedom of expression under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution is not absolute because when expression violates rights, public order, or morals, it crosses the legal line.

He also called on the government to strengthen regulation without stifling innovation. (NAN)