What are the documented outcomes (takedowns, prosecutions, convictions) from Nigeria’s INHOPE‑certified hotline in the last five years?

1. INHOPE membership and the bibliographic trace

INHOPE’s public portal lists network members and performance-like metrics and explicitly shows a Nigerian entry (ACSAI Nigeria) among listed hotlines, where a 39.2% figure appears in INHOPE’s snippet for 2023 related to Nigeria ^[1]. That listing establishes that there is an INHOPE‑certified presence associated with Nigeria in INHOPE’s materials, but it does not, in the material provided, translate into a ledger of operational outcomes such as the number of content takedowns, cross‑border referrals, or criminal prosecutions linked to hotline reports ^[1].

2. What the supplied material does not contain: no documented takedown/prosecution/conviction trail

A careful review of the documents provided — which include INHOPE’s member summaries and multiple Nigeria‑focused reports on humanitarian, health and policy topics — finds no line‑item reporting on specific takedowns executed, law‑enforcement prosecutions initiated, or convictions secured as the direct result of reports from Nigeria’s INHOPE‑certified hotline over the last five years ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Where INHOPE publishes performance percentages and member names, the excerpts included here do not include case‑level outcomes or legal follow‑up that would satisfy the question about prosecutions and convictions ^[1].

3. Why the gap matters and plausible reasons for silence

The absence of documented outcomes in the supplied reporting matters because hotspot metrics (percentages, member lists) are not the same as legal impact metrics; INHOPE and national hotlines commonly focus public communications on referral volumes, removal rates with service providers, and capacity indicators rather than on downstream prosecutorial outcomes, which may be handled by multiple agencies and rarely centralised in INHOPE’s public summaries ^[1]. The supplied Nigeria documents likewise focus on humanitarian and health priorities and do not appear designed to track cybercrime or online child sexual abuse case law arising from hotline referrals, which helps explain why those specific legal outcomes are not present in these materials ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Alternative lines of evidence and how to pursue them

To obtain the specific documented outcomes sought — takedowns, prosecutions, convictions linked to Nigeria’s INHOPE‑certified hotline — primary sources beyond the files provided are required: INHOPE’s full annual or member reports, public records from Nigeria’s police or judiciary, or transparency reports from the hotline operator (the INHOPE member), none of which are contained in the supplied snippets ^[1]. INHOPE’s website is the natural first contact for member reports and aggregate referral statistics ^[1]; similarly, Nigerian law‑enforcement or judiciary portals, and civil‑society watchdogs that track online child sexual abuse prosecutions, would be the next targets for record searches — items not present in the current document set ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Conflicting narratives and potential institutional incentives

Different actors have incentives that shape what they publish: INHOPE and hotlines emphasize service delivery metrics and international coordination; law enforcement and courts publish selectively and often anonymise victim information; NGOs highlight protection gaps or prosecution shortfalls to press for reform ^{[1] [2]}. Those divergent incentives can produce a public record where membership and referral counts are visible but prosecutorial outcomes are fragmented or absent from the consolidated, publicly quoted materials that were provided here ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Bottom line

Based on the supplied reporting, there are no documented, attributable records of takedowns, prosecutions, or convictions stemming from Nigeria’s INHOPE‑certified hotline in the last five years; the only clear documentary evidence in the material supplied is INHOPE’s listing that includes a Nigerian member and associated metric ^[1]. For authoritative case‑level outcomes, the next step is to consult full INHOPE member reports and Nigerian judicial or policing records, since those sources are not included among the materials provided ^{[1] [2] [3]}.