A human rights lawyer has taken a public figure to court in a case that forces a split between faith and accountability. The suit, filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja, accuses the actress and self-styled evangelist of subjecting a Junior Secondary School pupil to a degrading deliverance ritual. She then shared the footage online.
The claimant wants the footage taken down. They also demand an unreserved apology. Additionally, they request a permanent bar on similar acts. The claimant seeks ₦200 million in damages.
The episode erupted after a video and photos of the ritual began circulating on 6 March 2026. The footage, the court papers say, shows the child laid on bare ground and pressed against a stony surface while the actress performed what is described as a vicious religious exorcism.
The lawyer says those images were posted on the actress’s official social media page. The online exposure compounded the harm by publicly shaming the minor.
The legal claim frames this as more than a clash of belief. In the affidavit attached to the originating motion, the conduct is described as degrading treatment. It violated the child’s constitutional right to dignity. It also violated her right to privacy under the Child Rights Act.
The filing asks the court to declare that any form of child exorcism or harmful religious rite, when carried out on a minor, is unlawful. It also requests a perpetual injunction to prevent the actress from repeating the practice on any Nigerian child.
The case rests on two central arguments.
First, that the physical handling of the child was harmful and degrading. The affidavit notes the child was pressed against a stony surface. The actress wore artificial fingernails, which the lawyer says added risk and insult.
Second, publishing images and video of a vulnerable child without consent violated her privacy. It exposed her to stigma and ridicule among classmates.
The suit says the minor has already faced stigmatisation. The remedies sought are meant to compensate the victim. They are also intended to deter others.
This dispute is combustible because it sits at the intersection of three sensitive issues.
Nigerians value their faith and many accept deliverance practices. At the same time, there is a growing public awareness of child rights. There is also a rising demand for accountability from celebrities who influence large online audiences.
The court must balance the lawful exercise of religion. It must also uphold the constitutional guarantee that children are protected from degrading treatment and needless public exposure.
Legally, the suit cites established instruments. These include the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009, Section 34 of the Constitution on dignity, and Section 37 on privacy. It also mentions the Child Rights Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
If the court accepts the argument, the ruling could set an important precedent. These protections may forbid harmful religious rites on minors. This decision could influence how celebrities, pastors, and influencers conduct public spiritual interventions.
There is also a reputational angle. Once the footage went online the incident stopped being local and became a national spectacle. The claimant asks that the material be removed and that an apology be printed in three national newspapers.
For an actress who has moved into evangelical activity, a court finding against her could do lasting damage. The ₦200 million claim is both compensatory and symbolic.
Practical questions remain. Who authorised the child’s participation? Were parents or guardians informed and did they consent?
If the child was coerced or misled, criminal or child protection mechanisms could be triggered alongside civil claims.
The defence is likely to rely on freedom of religion and argue context and intent. Ultimately the bench will have to weigh the facts against statutory protections for minors.
Beyond this case the episode exposes a wider governance gap. Social media blurs the line between private ministry and public entertainment. Influencers and celebrities can turn a spiritual intervention into mass content in an instant.
Nigeria’s laws protect children on paper but enforcement is uneven. This test case could force platforms, religious bodies and regulators to reconsider their approaches. They may need to rethink how religious practices involving children are policed both online and offline.
At the time of filing the report the matter had not been given a hearing date. The claimant has asked for immediate deletion of the material, an apology and monetary compensation. The defence has not filed a public response.
Expect robust public debate. A fierce media contest will unfold as the case proceeds. Civil society groups will weigh in on child protection and freedom of religion.
If the court accepts the broader declaration sought, the ruling could be a turning point.
A finding that public or uploaded child deliverance rituals breach child rights would reshape faith-led interventions. It would place new obligations on public figures.
For now the question remains urgent and simple: where does public spirituality end and the abuse of a child start?
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
