Nigeria, a Pedophile’s Paradise: Inside the Horrifying “Olamet” Child Sexual Abuse Industry

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

On the evening of Thursday, September 10, a video circulating online brought 36-year-old Anulika Onyeanusia to the attention of the Anambra State Police Command. The footage showed Anulika sexually abusing a child with a sex toy, prompting police to trace her to her home in Onitsha and arrest her that evening. Four children, aged two, three, six and nine, were found in the house and rescued. Police also recovered sex toys and other items they said were relevant to the investigation. Police also recovered sex toys and other items considered relevant to the investigation. Anulika was taken into custody, while her husband was questioned.

In a video posted on Facebook on Saturday the 12 of September, her husband, Mr Onyeanusia, denied knowledge that his wife had been sexually molesting his daughter and said he discovered that on Thursday, the 12th of September evening from a friend who showed him clips of the incident.

“I saw the video. It was my wife and my daughter. She was molesting the child. I got confused and wondered if that was real.”

He also said he confronted his wife over the clips, but she denied the allegations, claiming they were generated using Artificial Intelligence. Investigators tried to establish whether he had any connection to what had allegedly been happening inside the house. The police said they were also investigating the possible involvement of other people.

“To this end, the Command notes that beyond the investigation and prosecution, its priority is the safety, dignity and wellbeing of the rescued children. The Command will work with the appropriate child protection and relevant support agencies to ensure that the victims receive the necessary care, protection, counselling and other support required for their recovery.”

Before and around the time of her arrest, Anulika’s first response to these accusations was to insist that the children in the videos were not real.

“So because I use kids, I write name means I have children,” she said in a video, before holding up what she described as the materials she used to create her content.

 “This is what I use to work… I disguise them as children.”

She went on to show what appeared to be clothes stuffed and arranged to resemble children, presenting them as the disguise she claimed was used in her videos.

Even if that explanation were accepted at face value, it leaves an uncomfortable question sitting in plain sight: her supposed defence appears to be that because the bodies being depicted were supposedly artificial, no child was harmed. 

But the existence of a child somewhere else in the production process is not the only issue raised by these materials created for sexual consumption. There is the deliberate construction of a sexualised representation of a child and the very decision to make that representation available to an audience and the market created around people willing to pay to see children represented in sexual acts. And in this case, the disguise explanation was made while actual children were living in the same home.

The role of technology: When Child Abuse Becomes a Business

Olamet is a social video platform built around meeting and interacting with strangers online. It’s current Google Play listing describes real time video and text chats, private messaging, short videos, virtual gifts and in app purchases. The app has more than five million downloads and is currently rated 17+, with sexual content and nudity included in its content rating. Olamet also promotes live streaming and a host and agent system on its website, creating a structure in which users can earn from activity on the platform.

That is the digital environment at the centre of the allegations against Anulika, Anulika has also been identified in reports by the online name “Freaky Goddess.” The videos were allegedly recorded and uploaded into an online environment where other people could access it, communicate with the person producing it and, according to the account given to investigators, pay for it. Olamet’s own policies are therefore relevant to the case.

It’s publicly available Terms of Service say users are not permitted to submit material that is unlawful, obscene, threatening, harassing or encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offence. The terms also state that adult content must be identified as such and give Olamet the right to remove user submissions and terminate access to the service where it considers content to violate its rules. The same terms make users responsible for what they submit to the platform. There is however an important limitation, the Terms of Service publicly available on Olamet’s website say they were last updated in April 2021 but the app itself was updated on Google Play as recently as August 13, 2026. This means it cannot simply be assumed that the 2021 terms are still the complete rules governing the platform today. More importantly, the version of the terms available for review does not specifically mention child sexual abuse material or child sexual exploitation, It contains broader prohibitions against unlawful and obscene material, but there is no specific CSAM provision that can presently be cited from the publicly accessible terms.

If Olamet’s current rules contain a specific prohibition on child sexual abuse material, the company should be able to explain what those rules are and how they are enforced. If the 2021 terms are still the applicable terms, there are questions about whether the platform’s general restrictions on unlawful or obscene material were sufficient to prevent the alleged abuse from being uploaded and circulated. Olamet also says in its privacy policy that it collects content users upload or capture through the platform, including photographs and recordings. The same policy says that where users violate the law or Olamet’s platform rules, the company may take necessary measures.

During the investigation, Anulika reportedly told police that she uploaded material involving her eight-year-old daughter to make money. She reportedly described being paid by a foreign man through WhatsApp and said the highest amount she had made was $300. 

What the account does establish is the existence of an alleged buyer on the other side of the material.

The technology did not commit the abuse. Anulika, remains responsible for what she did to the children. But it helped amplify it, the digital platform can determine how far that abuse travels, how many people can access it and whether someone can make money from it. That is why Olamet’s role deserves scrutiny alongside the people who used it.

What Emerged in Police Custody

A video recorded while Anulika Onyeanusia was in police custody and posted by Anambra-based comedian Onye Obodo on his Facebook on Friday, 11th September,2026 captures part of the questioning that followed her arrest. Onye Obodo does most of the talking, with other people audible in the background. Anulika is mostly quiet until she is asked how much money she made from the videos.

“The highest I’ve made is $300,” she says.

Asked whether that was the only amount she received, she replies: 

“It’s in dollars, sometimes it will just be like $300, sometimes $100, or $200.”

She then mentions how one of the payments came to her.

“It’s on WhatsApp, there’s one white guy that just gifted me, that’s how this thing happened.”

At another point, she is questioned about her earlier claim that the material was created using artificial intelligence. When asked what AI means, she says she does not know. She is also asked whether the videos were live and whether people were sending her gifts through the app, and she responded that it wasn’t. 

Asked whether her family or friends knew what she was doing, she says they did not. The questioning then turned to whether other Nigerian women were producing similar material.

“Other Nigerian girls are doing it,” Anulika says.

When asked to identify them, she says she does not know their names. She also says she had seen one of the videos herself and “gave it to one guy on the app.”

The statements in the video are Anulika’s account and have not, from the material publicly available, been independently established. But they give investigators claims that can be checked against digital records, WhatsApp communications, payment records and activity on the platforms she mentions.

In a later video posted by Onye Obodo the 16th of September, after he visited the Anambra State Police Command, Police Public Relations Officer SP Ikenga Tochukwu says the command is looking beyond Anulika.

Ikenga says police intercepted a social media comment claiming that some people were contributing money to prevent the case from “seeing the light of day”. He says the comment has been included in the investigation.

He also says the revelations point to what he calls “a syndicate crime”.

“It’s a syndicate crime,” Ikenga says, adding that the police are “looking into it” and may work with international partners to identify and prosecute other people mentioned.

“We want to scatter this syndicate into child sex exploitation”

Ikenga says the police will also go after other people involved and “those that are making gains” from the exploitation.

The PPRO did not publicly name the people allegedly involved or establish that a syndicate had been proven to exist. His comments indicate that the police are investigating whether other people and financial interests are connected to the case. He also said the four children rescued after Anulika’s arrest remain a priority, with their safety and mental health being addressed alongside the criminal investigation. According to Ikenga, the children are receiving psychological counselling with support from the Anambra State Government, the Commissioner for Women’s Affairs and First Lady Nonye Soludo.

What the Law Says About Everyone Involved

The abuse of a child, the production of sexual abuse material involving that child, and what happens to that material afterwards can raise separate criminal offences under Nigerian law.

Section 32 of the Child Rights Act provides that anyone who sexually abuses or sexually exploits a child in a manner not otherwise covered by the Act commits an offence punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment on conviction. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 also addresses the production and circulation of sexual material involving children. Section 23 criminalises producing, offering or making such material available, distributing or transmitting it, procuring it for oneself or another person, and knowingly possessing it on a computer system or storage medium.

Legal professional JD Njeb said the provision is deliberately broad in the people it can reach.

“The production, offering, distribution, procuring and possession are all crimes punishable under the Act. I believe this is an attempt to punish everyone involved in the chain of supply which includes producers, distributors and end users.”

That chain is important in this case because the account that Anulika gave while in police custody went beyond producing the videos. She said she had received payments, including amounts of $100, $200 and $300, and said she had given one of the videos to a man on an app, so whether the people she referred to committed offences is something investigators would have to establish from evidence. But their physical absence from the scene of the abuse would not by itself, settle the question of criminal responsibility.

Deborah Ekone, a legal professional and Board secretary with Naija Feminists Media, who also reviewed the case for Naija Feminists Media, explained that point 

 “The fact that somebody did not physically abuse the child or physically record the video does not automatically mean that there is no criminal liability.”

She also said investigators should look at the conduct of anyone who may have been involved in obtaining or commissioning the material.

 “If the evidence shows that someone was actually paying for these videos, requesting specific material or encouraging someone to produce it, then investigators should be looking at whether that person’s conduct went beyond simply receiving something that had already been produced.”

This extends to people who obtain the material after it has been produced. Under Section 23, procuring child sexual abuse material for oneself or another person and possessing it on a computer system or storage medium are themselves offences.

Legal professional Deborah said the law therefore does not stop being relevant once a video has already been created or circulated.

“The fact that a video has already been circulated does not mean that it becomes acceptable for other people to continue sharing it.”

She pointed to the difference between reporting the existence of abusive material to authorities and deliberately participating in its further circulation.

“Reporting to authorities is different from sending it to friends, posting it online, asking someone to forward it, or keeping it.”

JD Njeb also made the same point from another angle:

 “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are the maker of the pornographic material. Distributing the same is a crime.”

The law also recognises conduct that assists another person in committing an offence. Section 27 of the Cybercrimes Act provides for liability in cases involving attempts, aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, conspiracy and other forms of participation in offences under the Act.

For this case, that raises questions beyond who physically recorded the material. If someone commissioned it, encouraged its production, paid for particular material, procured it for another person or knowingly helped move it from one person to another, investigators would need to establish exactly what that person did and what they knew. The legal professional said physical distance does not automatically remove responsibility either.

A person who was not present when a child was abused could still face scrutiny where there is evidence that they facilitated, encouraged, procured or assisted the conduct. Likewise, someone who knowingly obtains, possesses or distributes the material after it has been produced may have committed an offence through that later conduct.

The legal professionals also pointed to the importance of establishing knowledge and intention rather than treating everyone who comes into contact with a file as automatically guilty. That is particularly important when dealing with people who claim they encountered material accidentally, the legal question is different where a person knowingly searches for it, requests it, pays for it, keeps it or deliberately sends it to somebody else, and the investigation does not have to end with the people directly connected to the recording.

Deborah said investigators should follow the entire chain and investigators should establish several persons, by examining: 

“communications, devices, social-media/messaging accounts, payment records/bank transfers, other children, isolated vs wider pattern, and who requested/paid for/produced for/received/kept/distributed” the material” 

That means the payments Anulika described, the WhatsApp communications she referred to, the accounts used to exchange material and the identities of people on the receiving end could all become relevant evidence.

There is also a wider child-protection framework that can apply to sexual exploitation. The Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act addresses the use, procurement or offering of a child for the production of pornography or pornographic performances. NAPTIP’s guidance for journalists similarly recognises child online exploitation as technology or internet-facilitated sexual abuse, including the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material.

Osas, another  legal professional and women’s rights advocate, said the material should not be treated as ordinary viral content simply because it has already entered the public domain.

“In digital spaces, this material is often carelessly dismissed as viral content. Legally and practically, it represents an active crime scene, Disseminating or hosting such footage is not a passive act of sharing information; it constitutes a continuous, compounding act of sexual violence against the survivor each time the file is opened, shared, or stored.”

She also pointed to the demand surrounding such material. Under Section 23 of the Cybercrimes Act, conduct involving the procurement, transmission and possession of child sexual abuse material can attract criminal liability. The 2024 amendment to the Cybercrimes Act should be read alongside the original 2015 Act when setting out the current legal position.

Osas said the public response to such material also needs to be treated differently from ordinary online engagement.

“The public appetite demanding ‘the link’ or ‘evidence’ is neither harmless curiosity nor civic engagement, The circulation of abuse material inflicts lifelong secondary victimization on the child.”

Her recommendation is straightforward, people who encounter  the material should not save or forward it, but should instead report it to law enforcement and the relevant platform so that the material can be investigated and removed without creating another avenue for its circulation.

The lawyers were more cautious when it came to the responsibility of the platform itself.

The fact that allegedly abusive material appeared on Olamet would not, on its own, establish criminal liability on the part of the company. The Legal professional, specifically, cautioned that platforms are not automatically criminally responsible merely because material appears through their services.

“Platforms can be an evidence trail but not automatically criminally responsible solely because material appeared; responsibility depends on facts, conduct, obligations.”

In other words, investigators would have to establish what the platform knew, what it did or failed to do, what its obligations were, and how its systems were used. Its records could nevertheless help investigators identify accounts, communications, transactions and other people connected to the material.

There is another possible line of inquiry in Anulika’s own statement. When asked about other people producing similar material, she said  “Other Nigerian girls are doing it.”

She did not provide names when questioned. Her statement is therefore not evidence that other women are involved, but it is a claim investigators can test against digital records and other evidence. The same caution applies to the Anambra police’s reference to a possible wider network. Police spokesperson SP Ikenga Tochukwu said the revelations pointed to what he called “a syndicate crime” and that the command was looking into other people who may have been involved or making money from the exploitation. No other alleged participant has been publicly identified by the police at this stage, and the existence of a wider syndicate has not been established by a court.

For the people who may have paid for, requested, received or circulated the material, however, the law already provides investigators with several offences to examine. The question is no longer simply who held the camera. It is what each person did before, during and after the material was produced, what they knew, and what evidence can establish their role.

Nigeria, a Pedophile’s Paradise

The abuse of children in Nigeria does not begin and end with strangers lurking online , in fact some of the perpetrators are the people children live with, depend on or are expected to trust. In August 2026, the Edo State Government disclosed that more than 70 cases of child sexual abuse had been recorded in the state between January and July. More than half of the perpetrators, according to the Commissioner for Women Affairs and Social Development, Eugenia Abdallah, were fathers. The victims were between two and 10 years old, and one girl in the ministry’s custody had been impregnated by her father. 

Naija Feminists Media has reported other cases involving relatives. In Lagos, a 38-year-old man was arrested for repeatedly raping his 13-year-old stepdaughter. The girl had reportedly fled the home several times before eventually telling her biological father about the abuse.

Then the case of Ochanya Ogbanje, who was eight when she went to live with her aunt’s family so she could attend school. Naija Feminists Media reported that she was sexually abused by her cousin and by his father after he became aware of the abuse. 

These problems are not just confined to fathers, stepfathers and other relatives.

Naija Feminists Media reported the conviction and imprisonment of Chidiebere Kalu, a school security guard who sexually abused a 10-year-old pupil at the school where he worked. A 31-year-old NYSC member and teacher in Delta State was arraigned after raping a six-year-old pupil three times within the school premises. Another Naija Feminists report covered the sexual assault and confinement of a 15-year-old girl in Cross River. There are also children being moved, sold and exploited. In August, Naija Feminists Media reported that six children between three and seven years old were found in the custody of a 51-year-old man arrested in Abia over alleged child trafficking. Police said they were investigating to establish the circumstances surrounding the children and identify other suspected members of the alleged trafficking syndicate. 

There is also the exploitation of girls through child marriage, particularly in northern Nigeria. UNICEF’s 2024 Situation Analysis found that child marriage remains considerably more common in the North, with prevalence above 54 per cent in the North East and North West and above 70 per cent in some northern states. The North West had the country’s lowest median age at first marriage at 15.3 years. More recent UNICEF data puts the national figure at 33.4 per cent of young women marrying before 18, with rates close to 50 per cent in the North East and North West. UNICEF also reported that more than 3.7 million women aged 20–24 in Nigeria had been married before turning 18. 

That means a country in which girls can be sexually abused by fathers and other relatives, raped by people entrusted with their education, trafficked by adults, married off while still children, and exploited through digital platforms is dealing with far more than isolated incidents.

The 2014 National Violence Against Children Survey found that 24.8 per cent of Nigerian women aged 18–24 had experienced sexual abuse before turning 18, compared with 10.8 per cent of men. Among girls aged 13–17 who had experienced sexual abuse in the preceding year, nearly half had first experienced it at 13 or younger. The abuse also takes forms that extend beyond physical contact. NAPTIP’s own reporting guidance identifies child online exploitation as the use of technology or the internet to facilitate the sexual abuse of a child. It includes adults engaging children in sexual conversations, asking them to perform sexual acts or expose themselves, and taking, making, sharing or showing indecent images of children. The same guidance identifies the buying and selling of children and other forms of exploitation as evolving trafficking trends in Nigeria. The existence of abuse across homes, schools and other settings does not by itself establish a single organised network of perpetrators. But the cases reported by Naija Feminists Media together with the figures disclosed by state authorities, show that sexual abuse of children is occurring across multiple settings and that the adults responsible are often people with direct access to them.

What Justice Should Account For 

The arrest of Anulika Onyeanusia is only one part of what must happen after the abuse has been exposed. The Anambra State Police Command said on September 24 that it had concluded its investigation and forwarded the case file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for necessary legal action. The four children rescued during the investigation also remain at the centre of concerns about protection, recovery and the long-term consequences of what they have been subjected to. (

Prisca Iwendi, a women’s rights advocate, fact checker and Project and partnerships officer with Naija Feminists Media, said the starting point is the child herself.

“As a women’s rights advocate, I find this case deeply disturbing and heartbreaking. An eight-year-old child should be enjoying her childhood, not being subjected to sexual abuse by someone who is supposed to love and protect her,” Iwendi said. “This is a gross violation of her rights, dignity, and bodily autonomy.”

She said the harm cannot be reduced to what happened to the child physically, particularly because the abuse was recorded and circulated online.

“The abuse goes beyond physical trauma. It can leave deep emotional and psychological scars, affecting the child’s self-esteem, sense of identity, and ability to trust others,” Iwendi said. “The fact that these videos have been created and circulated online makes the situation even more concerning.”

The continued existence of such material online can mean that a child may eventually grow up knowing that intimate and traumatic moments from her childhood were recorded and distributed to other people.

“Imagine growing up and discovering that such intimate and traumatic moments from your childhood are permanently etched into the digital world. No child deserves to carry that burden,” she said.

The Federal Ministry of Women Affairs has also warned members of the public against downloading, reposting, forwarding or circulating images and videos depicting abused children. The ministry urged anyone who encounters such material to preserve relevant information securely, avoid sharing it and report it to law enforcement or child-protection authorities.

Prisca also added that protecting children also requires confronting the adults who exploit the trust placed in them.

“To mothers, parents, and caregivers, I would say that a child is not a commodity, and their vulnerability must never be exploited for financial gain or any other purpose,children depend on us for love, safety, and protection. That trust must never be betrayed.”

“No financial incentive or personal circumstance can justify subjecting a child to sexual abuse”

She said the response to the case must therefore extend beyond the arrest of the person at the centre of the investigation.

“Our priority must be to protect this child, ensure she receives the medical and psychological support she needs, safeguard her identity, and prevent further circulation of the videos. We must also ensure that those responsible are held accountable.”

“Ultimately, every child deserves to grow up in safety, dignity, and love. We must create a society where children are protected, survivors are supported, and no child is ever made to endure such an experience.”