A report circulating on social media claiming that Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, was rushed to the National Hospital, Abuja, following alleged breathing difficulties and was being prepared for medical evacuation to London has been dismissed as false and misleading.
Contrary to the report, Justice Lifu was in court attending to cases, with a court registrar confirming his presence and judicial activities during an enquiry by this reporter.
The registrar, who declined to speak officially on the matter, challenged those in doubt to visit the court and verify the situation for themselves.
“Come to our court and verify for yourself. My Lord, Justice Lifu, is sitting. We have many cases to attend to today. If he was hospitalised, would he be in court?” the registrar said.
The report, which emerged against the backdrop of public reactions to the judge’s recent judgment nullifying the candidacy of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, alleged that the judicial officer experienced sudden breathing difficulties and was rushed to the National Hospital.
It further claimed that efforts were underway to airlift him to London for further medical treatment after doctors in Abuja had reportedly been unable to resolve his condition.
However, the registrar’s account of the judge’s presence in court and participation in judicial proceedings contradicts the central claim of the circulating report.
The development has raised concerns about the growing tendency among some social media users to disseminate unverified information, particularly concerning public officials and judicial officers whose decisions may attract strong reactions.
It is particularly disturbing that a report involving an alleged medical emergency could be circulated without adequate verification, potentially misleading members of the public, creating unnecessary anxiety and exposing the subject to unwarranted speculation.
The incident underscores the need for greater responsibility in the use of social media. The ease and speed with which information can be shared across digital platforms should not become an excuse for spreading falsehoods, sensational claims or malicious rumours.
Social media users have therefore been urged to verify information from credible sources before publishing or sharing it, particularly when such claims concern the health, safety, reputation or personal circumstances of others.
The fact that a report is presented as breaking news or attributed to unnamed sources does not automatically make it credible. Users have a responsibility to establish the authenticity of information before amplifying it to a wider audience.
Freedom of expression comes with a corresponding responsibility to respect the truth.
Social media should serve as a platform for constructive engagement, public enlightenment and the exchange of information, rather than an instrument for spreading misinformation, engaging in character assassination or advancing personal and political grievances.
Meanwhile, those dissatisfied with Justice Lifu’s judgment have been reminded that the appellate courts remain open to any party seeking to challenge the decision through the established judicial process.
Disagreement with a court judgment, however strong, cannot justify manufacturing allegations or circulating unsubstantiated stories about the health of the judicial officer who delivered it.
The appropriate response to a judicial decision considered unfavourable is to seek redress through the appellate process rather than resort to social media campaigns capable of misleading the public and undermining confidence in the administration of justice.
The public has consequently been urged to disregard the purported hospitalisation report and refrain from further circulating the unverified claims.
