Court is Now in Session_Case007

The People v. "Left Unread for 3 Days but Posting on Instagram Stories"

Court Clerk:

"All rise!"

"The Honourable Justice Common Sense presiding."

Judge:

"Be seated."

"Bailiff, close the courtroom doors. And please confiscate every phone in the gallery. I will not have anyone posting live updates from these proceedings while claiming they are 'too busy to reply.'"

Court Clerk:

"Case No. 007. The People versus 'Left Unread for 3 Days but Posting on Instagram Stories.'"

"Charge: Deliberate neglect of a pending message, aggravated digital visibility, and fraudulent claims of being 'too busy to reply.'"

Prosecutor:

"Ready for the People, My Lord."

Counsel:

"Ready for the Defence, My Lord."

Judge:

"Bring in the accused."

The accused enters the courtroom wearing sunglasses and holding a phone.

The gallery erupts.

Someone shouts:

"But you posted this morning!"

Judge:

"Order!"

The accused quietly opens Instagram.

The Judge immediately orders the phone to be placed face down.

"Nobody is posting during my proceedings."

The Case for the Prosecution

Prosecutor:

"My Lord, the People will establish a simple and deeply troubling sequence of events."

"The victim sent a message on Monday at 9:14 AM."

The Court Clerk projects the evidence onto the courtroom screen.

MONDAY, 9:14 AM
"Hey, just checking in. How did the meeting go?"

Prosecutor:

"Reasonable message. No emergency. No emotional blackmail. No essay."

"Three days passed."

"Nothing."

"Then, on Thursday at 7:32 AM..."

The screen changes.

INSTAGRAM STORY:

"New day. New energy. God is doing something beautiful! 🙏🏽✨"

The gallery gasps.

Prosecutor:

"At 7:35 AM, the accused posted a photograph of breakfast."

At 7:41 AM:

A gym selfie.

At 8:03 AM:

A motivational quote.

At 8:17 AM:

A video of Lagos traffic captioned:

"Who sent me this morning? 😂"

The Prosecutor turns slowly towards the accused.

"And yet, My Lord, the original message remained unread."

Judge:

"Unread?"

Prosecutor:

"Yes, My Lord."

"Or so the accused claims."

"Because at 11:26 AM, the accused watched the victim's own Story."

The courtroom erupts.

Judge:

"Order!"

He looks over his glasses.

"That is quite a lot of digital activity for someone who was apparently unavailable."

The Victim Takes the Stand

Court Clerk:

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

The Victim:

"I do."

Prosecutor:

"How did you feel when you saw the accused posting while your message remained unanswered?"

The Victim:

"Honestly, My Lord, I was not angry at first."

"I thought perhaps they were busy."

"Then I saw the Story."

"Then another."

"Then another."

"At some point, I began wondering whether my message had offended them."

Prosecutor:

"Did you send another message?"

The Victim:

"No, My Lord."

"Self-respect entered the courtroom before I did."

The gallery applauds.

Judge:

"Order! Although the Court acknowledges the statement."

The Defence

Counsel:

"My Lord, the prosecution is confusing digital activity with emotional availability."

"My client may have had enough energy to post a picture, but not enough mental space to enter a conversation."

"Posting a Story takes three seconds."

"Responding to someone properly may require attention, thought and emotional presence."

"The accused did not say they hated the victim."

"They were simply not ready to engage."

Prosecutor:

"My Lord, if that were the case, why did the accused have time to reply to three comments?"

The Defence pauses.

The gallery leans forward.

Counsel:

"Those comments required emojis."

Judge:

"That is... disturbingly persuasive."

The Cross-Examination

Prosecutor:

"Mr Accused, when you posted 'Some people are just too important to lose,' were you referring to the person whose message you had ignored for three days?"

The Accused:

"No."

Prosecutor:

"Who were you referring to?"

The Accused:

"Myself."

Silence.

The Judge slowly puts down his pen.

"Next question."

Prosecutor:

"When you wrote 'Protecting my peace,' were you protecting your peace from the person who sent the message?"

The Accused:

"Possibly."

Prosecutor:

"But you watched their Story?"

The Accused:

"Yes."

Prosecutor:

"Twice?"

The accused says nothing.

The gallery gasps.

The Judgment

Justice Common Sense removes his glasses.

"The Court recognises an important distinction."

"Being online does not mean being available."

"A person is allowed to have the energy to scroll without having the energy to converse. A photograph does not constitute a legally binding declaration of emotional readiness."

The Defence smiles.

"However..."

The Judge looks directly at the accused.

"Silence becomes questionable when it is accompanied by vigorous evidence of life."

The gallery laughs.

"If you genuinely need space, take it."

"If you are overwhelmed, say so."

"If you intend to reply later, reply later."

"But do not repeatedly broadcast your availability to the entire digital population while making one person wonder whether they have been quietly exiled."

He raises the gavel.

"The accused, 'Left Unread for 3 Days but Posting on Instagram Stories,' is hereby found..."

NOT GUILTY of being unavailable.

"However, the Court finds the accused..."

GUILTY of Selective Availability with Aggravated Digital Evidence.

Sentence is hereby passed:

The accused shall send one honest message within twenty-four hours whenever they knowingly postpone a response:

"I have seen this. I will get back to you when I have the headspace."

Failure to comply will result in the confiscation of Instagram privileges for seventy-two hours and compulsory use of the phrase:

"Sorry, I disappeared."

The Judge pauses.

"And let the record show..."

"Watching someone's Story is not a response."

The gallery explodes.

Judge:

"Court is adjourned."

Bang.

The Principle of the Court:

"Your digital presence may be public, but your availability is personal."

"If you need space, take it. Just do not make someone else's silence the price of maintaining yours."

Next Week Before This Honourable Court...

Case No. 008: The People v. "I'll Call You Back"

The prosecution alleges that the accused promised to return a telephone call and then disappeared into the wilderness for six business days.

The Defence intends to argue that "I'll call you back" is not legally binding and that the phrase has been routinely abused by citizens for generations.

The Court will determine whether it constitutes a promise, a polite escape route, or one of the greatest lies in modern communication.

Proceedings continue next week.