January 19, 2026

The Truth about AI Generated Content and the Law: What You Need To Know

by Ekosolicitors

Introduction On AI Generated Content & The Law

As Nigerian creators, lawyers, and tech enthusiasts embrace AI Generated Content from ChatGPT drafting legal briefs in Ikoyi to Midjourney creating Afrofuturist art in Surulere. The use of AI generated content brings about a critical legal question: Who carries the cross when the AI goes wrong?

The popular myth is that because “the machine wrote it,” the human is shielded from liability. However, as of 2026, Nigeria’s legal framework is clear: Artificial Intelligence is a tool, not a person. If your AI-generated content breaks the law, the suit will have your name on it, not the software’s.

This article examines the key areas of legal exposure for AI users in Nigeria, drawing from existing legislation and emerging regulatory frameworks.

1. The Copyright Conundrum: Who Owns AI-Generated Content?

The biggest question about AI generated content is: Who owns it? If you can’t own it, can you be sued for it? Under Nigerian law, copyright is generally reserved for humans.

What the Law Says

Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 provides that a work is not eligible for copyright unless “some effort has been expended on making the work, to give it an original character.” The Act lists eligible works including literary works, musical works, artistic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and broadcasts, but requires human creative input for protection.

Furthermore, Section 108 of the Copyright Act 2022 defines an “author” in terms that imply a “person” interpreted as a natural or legal person. Since AI is not a legal person in Nigeria, content generated solely by AI may lack copyright protection and fall into the public domain.

In the case of Ifeanyi Okoyo v Prompt and Quality Services & Anor ([2003-2007] 5 IPLR 117-135), the court stated:

“It is pertinent to observe that a literary or musical work is not eligible for copyright unless sufficient effort has been expended in making it in order to give it an original character. This is a matter of fact which must be proved by evidence.”

This creates a paradox for AI users. Since AI generated content lacks a legal “author,” you might find yourself unable to sue someone for stealing “your” AI art. Conversely, if the AI was trained on unlicensed Nigerian music or literature, you—the publisher—could be sued for copyright infringement under Section 37 of the Copyright Act 2022.

2. Criminal Liability: When AI Hallucinations Become Your Crimes(AI Generated Content)

If an AI “hallucinates” (creates false information) about a person and you publish it, you and not the AI are liable.

Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 is perhaps the most dangerous provision for AI users. It provides that:

“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that (a) is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be so sent; or (b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent: commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

This provision criminalises the use of a computer system to send messages that are “grossly offensive” or “false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, or injury.”

If you use AI to generate a “deepfake” or a false story about a public figure, you could face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to seven million naira under this Act. The law does not recognise “but the AI made it up” as a defense.

3. Civil Liability: Defamation by Algorithm

In Nigeria, the “publisher” of defamatory content is held responsible. Using AI is seen as a tool, much like a pen or a printing press.

AI models are notorious for “generating false facts with absolute confidence. If you publish an AI-generated content or article falsely claiming a public figure is under EFCC investigation, you are liable for libel under Nigerian defamation law. The traditional defenses like truth, fair comment, and privilege still apply, but “the AI told me so” is not among them.

4. Data Privacy: The Silent Breach

Many Nigerians unknowingly upload sensitive company data or personal information into AI prompts, creating potential violations of data protection laws.

The Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 mandates that personal data must be processed lawfully and with consent. Section 34(c) of the Act explicitly mentions that data subjects have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing (including profiling) which produces legal effects.

Every time you feed sensitive client data or private company information into an AI prompt, you may be committing a data breach. The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) can impose heavy “remedial fees” (fines) on companies that leak data via AI tools.

Emerging Requirements on AI Generated Content

The General Application and Implementation Directive (GAID) 2025 now mandates that companies conducting “high-risk” AI processing must perform a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Failure to do so exposes the company to massive remedial fees from the NDPC.

Nigeria is currently moving toward more formal oversight. The National Artificial Intelligence Bill (2025), currently making its way through the National Assembly, proposes:

Mandatory Registration: Licensing for “high-risk” AI developers.

Algorithmic Transparency: Forcing companies to explain how their AI reached a decision.

This signals a shift from reactive enforcement to proactive regulation of AI systems in Nigeria.

Practical Steps to using AI Generated Content

To avoid being the “guinea pig” for AI litigation in Nigeria:

Human in the Loop: Never publish AI generated content without a human fact-check and edit. This establishes the “effort” required for copyright protection and prevents defamation claims.
Disclosure: Use disclaimers like “Generated with the assistance of AI” or “AI generated content ” to maintain transparency and manage expectations with your audience.
Prompt Privacy: Never input “Personal Identifiable Information” (PII) of your clients into public AI tools. Consider using enterprise-grade AI solutions with proper data protection agreements.
Documentation: Keep records of your editing process and human input to demonstrate the creative effort required for copyright eligibility.
Legal Review: For high-stakes content, especially content involving public figures or sensitive topics, have a legal professional review AI-generated content and material before publication.

Conclusion

As Nigeria embraces artificial intelligence, the legal system remains anchored to a fundamental principle: tools do not bear responsibility—people do. Whether you’re a content creator in Lagos, a lawyer in Abuja, or a tech entrepreneur in Port Harcourt, understanding your liability for AI-generated content is no longer optional.

The technology may be new, but the law is clear: If your AI goes rogue, the lawsuit lands at your doorstep, not the machine’s. In the absence of a robust AI-specific regulatory framework, Nigerian courts will continue to apply existing laws on copyright, defamation, cybercrime, and data protection to AI-related disputes.

The message to Nigerian AI users is simple: Use wisely, edit carefully, and remember that in the eyes of the law, artificial intelligence is just another pen—and you are the one holding it.

CONTRIBUTORS