JURISPRUDENCE IN TRADITIONAL IGBO SOCIETY AND THE COURT OF SOCIAL MEDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The sustainability of any society hinges on the preservation of social order, which serves as the structure that prevents societal collapse into chaos. This social order is upheld by-laws that regulate the actions of individuals within the community. Accountability for violations of these laws ensures that order is maintained. In pre-colonial Igbo society, long before the arrival of colonial influences, mechanisms were in place to hold individuals accountable, thus reinforcing social control. Offenders were held responsible for their actions, regardless of their social status, and appropriate punishments were meted out. This system operated with the welfare of the entire community in mind, fostering the just society for which the Igbo people became known. In contemporary times, the rise of Information Communication Technology (ICT) has introduced new dynamics in maintaining social order. The widespread use of communication platforms, particularly social media, has given rise to a new form of public accountability, especially in Nigeria. It is encapsulated in the terms “Dragging” or “Call out.” Through these practices, social media has taken on the role of a virtual court of arbitration. This paper seeks to explore the jurisprudence surrounding crime in traditional Igbo society. It delves into key questions: What is crime and punishment in Igbo traditional society? How did the Igbo people call out offenders and make them accountable for their offenses? What is the end goal of calling out offenders? How is the wrong addressed and justice served? What is a social media court? How are people held accountable in this context? With these questions in mind, the paper undertakes a critical comparative analysis of traditional Igbo systems of accountability, described as jurisprudence, and the modern "social media court" of justice. Relying on secondary sources such as online journals, internet resources, and social media posts, the paper concludes that although both systems address wrongdoings, they differ in terms of methods, aims, and processes.