Corruption is a global problem with negative implications for economic growth, political stability, and social cohesion (Hellman, Jones, Kaufmann, & Schankerman, 1999). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2008) defines corruption as the “misuse of entrusted power for private gain.”

In today’s societies, Twitter is an exterior part of the fight against corruption. They have the potential to be a check-and-balance system. As a fourth estate, Twitter keeps an eye on adherence to democratic laws, ideals, and norms. Unlike the three institutionalized authorities (legislative, executive, and judicial bodies), however, Twitter has no legal means of disciplining corrupt public officials’ activities; as a result, they exert indirect public oversight (Stapenhurst, 2000). First, as watchdogs, Twitter holds politicians accountable for their actions (Norris, 2004). As a result, Twitter may be able to assist “prosecutorial authorities by investigating and broadcasting examples of corruption” (Camaj, 2012), leading to official investigations and the conviction of corrupt political figures. Independent and critical Twitter frequently execute their duty as a regulatory body more efficiently than legislative, executive, and judicial institutions when institutionalized control agencies fall victim to corruption and are unable to adequately apply punishments (Stapenhurst, 2000). (Stapenhurst, 2000). Twitter’s expose of corrupt public officials aids vertical accountability, which Schedler (1999) defines as a control mechanism between powerful superior and less powerful inferior participants. For example, Iceland’s Prime Minister, Sigmundur Dav Gunnlaugsson, was forced to resign following public indignation over the Panama Papers revelations.

This incident highlights how voters’ demands for accountability from elected officials can be influenced via Twitter. Twitter is more likely to influence private-to-public corruption because public outrage jeopardizes elected officials’ reputations. Private-sector players, on the other hand, are substantially less reliant on public favor, therefore poor Twitter coverage is less likely to impact private-to-private wrongdoing (Argandoa, 2003).

Second, Twitter strengthens the checks and balances that exist between actors with equal power (horizontal accountability; Camaj, 2012). Journalists can help Twitter be more effective in fighting corruption by exposing flaws in anti-corruption agencies and asking for reform (Stapenhurst, 2000). Furthermore, Twitter coverage of control mechanism proceedings strengthens the work and legitimacy of the state’s anti-corruption bodies, bolstering the political system’s institutional design, which is regarded as “the most important thing in the world.”


The President of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, has been criticized for his decision to ban Twitter, which has aroused suspicions among Nigerians. Twitter, as one of the most widely used forms of media in Nigeria for a variety of purposes, can lead to individuals engaging in various unethical activities, such as finding other negative ways to access the app; additionally, individuals’ businesses are dependent on the advertisements they post on this platform, and if this platform is banned, these individuals may turn to other devious businesses to survive. The government may perceive this as a way to engage in some unethical behavior. Twitter also provides a civic platform for residents to vent their issues.

These efforts to name and shame corrupt actors may have an impact on their reputation as well as urge law compliance (Fisman & Miguel, 2008). Twitter contributes to a culture of openness in society by distributing information about corruption, which reduces corruption on both a structural and individual level (Kolstad & Wiig, 2009). On the other hand, transparency is ineffective in reducing corruption.

The purpose of this research is to see how the Twitter ban has affected the spread of corruption in Nigeria.


The primary goal of this study is to see how the Twitter ban has affected the growth of corruption in Nigeria. As a result, the following goals have been established:

1. To determine the significance of Twitter in a country such as Nigeria.

2. To assess the impact of the restriction on individuals and businesses.

3. To see if the ban has resulted in an increase in corruption in Nigeria.


This study is guided by the following questions:

1. In a country like Nigeria, what role does Twitter play?

2. What impact will this restriction have on individuals and organizations?

3. Has Nigeria’s corruption increased as a result of the ban?


This research will be essential because it will highlight the relevance of Twitter for individuals, organizations, and even the government in disseminating vital information to the public. It will also benefit the academic community by providing material for other researchers who want to conduct research on the same topic or expand the scope of this study.


The influence of the Twitter ban on the spread of corruption in Nigeria will be the sole focus of this research. Twitter will be the only social media platform addressed.


The researcher’s only constraint in carrying out this investigation was a lack of time.


1. BAN: A ban is a formal or legal prohibition on a certain item or conduct. A ban in this study refers to Twitter’s formal prohibition.

2. CORRUPTION: Simply said, corruption is when individuals or the government engage in dishonest or fraudulent behavior, usually involving bribery or other forms of unethical behavior.

3. TWITTER: A social media platform used to communicate with a specific recipient or audience.


A. Argandoa, A. Argandoa, A. Argandoa, A (2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 253–267. Private-to-private corruption. doi:10.1023/A:1026266219609

L. Camaj (2012). The role of the media in the battle against corruption: The impact of the media on government accountability doi:10.1177/1940161212462741 The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(1), 21–42.

Economic gangsters: Corruption, violence, and national impoverishment, Fisman, R., and Miguel, E. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

J. S. Hellman, G. Jones, D. Kaufmann, and M. Schankerman (1999). How firms and bureaucrats create the business environment in transition economies: Measuring governance, corruption, and state capture Policy Working Paper of the World Bank. World Bank, Washington, DC.

I. Kolstad and A. Wiig (2009). Is the key to combating corruption in resource-rich countries transparency? 521–532 in World Development, vol. 37, no. 3, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.002.

D. Lederman, N. V. Loayza, and R. R. Soares (2005). Political institutions important when it comes to accountability and corruption. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x. Economics & Politics, 17(1), 1–35.

P. Norris, P. Norris, P. Norris, P (2004). Political communication on a global scale Good government, human development, and mass communication are all important factors. Comparing political communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges (pp. 115–150), edited by F. Esser and B. Pfetsch. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

A. Schedler (1999). Accountability as a concept. The self-restraining state (pp. 13–28), edited by A. Schedler, L. Diamond, and M. F. Plantter. Lynne Reinner, Boulder, CO.

R. Stapenhurst, R. Stapenhurst, R. Stapenhurst (2000). The role of the media in the fight against corruption. The World Bank Institute is based in Washington, DC.

UNDP stands for United Nations Development Programme (2008). Accelerating human development in Asia and the Pacific through combating corruption and transforming lives. Macmillan, New Delhi, India.

Leave a Comment