Posting private files: five years in prison requested against a young man at CRIET

On the stand, the defendant admitted to the facts, sparking outrage from the prosecution and fierce determination from the victim, who is demanding an exemplary sentence.

The charges against the accused are serious: according to the special prosecutor’s office, the individual published intimate images of his ex-girlfriend, taken from her own phone, in retaliation for suspicions of infidelity. These acts were initially classified as “harassment via electronic communication.”

Before the Court, the victim gave a poignant testimony. She denounced not only the disclosure of her private data, but also the irresponsibility of the defendant, who, according to her, refuses to acknowledge paternity of their child together. “He takes care of neither me nor the child. He exposed me to the whole world. I want nothing from him, only that he be punished,” she declared firmly.

Admission of the facts and heavy sentencing requests

Questioned in turn, the defendant did not attempt to deny the facts. In a contrite tone, he admitted having acted out of anger. The Court then put a weighty question to him: “Can a normal man do that to the mother of his child?” After a long silence, the young man answered no, visibly shaken.

For the prosecution, this case goes beyond simple electronic harassment. The deputy prosecutor proposed reclassifying the facts as “theft of digital data” and “invasion of privacy,” offenses provided for and punished under the Digital Code of the Republic of Benin.

She requested a sentence of five (5) years in prison, three (3) of them without parole, along with a fine of one million CFA francs. A sentence deemed proportionate to the gravity of the acts, the humiliation suffered by the victim, and the deterrent effect the case could carry.

When asked what she expected in terms of redress, the young woman was direct: “I don’t want his money, I want him to go to prison,” she said. This categorical refusal of financial compensation reflects a desire for justice that is above all symbolic, in a context where digital violence and privacy violations are sharply on the rise.

At the close of the hearing, the Court decided to reserve its ruling. The verdict is expected in October 2025.