The High Court refused an application by Fred Muwema for Facebook Ireland Limited to disclose the identity of the person or people behind a Facebook account known as “Tom Voltaire Okwalinga” or “TVO”. The decision followed the court’s admission of new evidence about the potential danger to the account operator if identified.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 8 February 2017, was supplementary to an earlier decision in which the court refused Muwema’s requests to have posts about him taken down. The court had indicated it would grant an order requiring disclosure of identifying information, but Facebook applied to introduce further evidence before that order was finalised.
Facebook’s evidence raised concerns that the Ugandan authorities might target the person behind the account. It also said Muwema’s application appeared to combine links to two different pages using the TVO name: a more established profile and a possible copycat page. The company’s evidence described government efforts to identify TVO and the arrest of a person who was wrongly suspected of being the account operator.
Muwema disputed that disclosure would create the risk described by Facebook. He argued that the reports relied on by the company were outdated and that people critical of the Ugandan government had received fair treatment. He said he needed the account operator’s identity to seek redress for posts the court had already found defamatory.
The court admitted Facebook’s new evidence, applying the approach to late evidence set out in an earlier High Court decision. Although the information could have been presented at the original hearing, Mr Justice Binchy accepted Facebook’s explanation for the delay. He said it would be unconscionable to exclude evidence where its admission could avert a threat to someone’s life or bodily integrity.
In considering disclosure, the judge weighed Muwema’s right to vindicate his good name against the account operator’s right to life and bodily integrity. He found it probable that disclosure—whether it identified the “real” TVO or the possible copycat account—would expose the operator to human rights abuses, potentially including unlawful detention, mistreatment in custody or torture. He concluded that the risk was sufficiently serious to outweigh Muwema’s interest in obtaining the identifying information.
The court therefore refused the disclosure application. The refusal was conditional: Facebook was directed to notify TVO that the posts must be removed within 14 days of delivery of the judgment. If they were not removed, Muwema would be entitled to renew his application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, which the judgment said would then be granted.