Furore over cybercrime law

•Lawyers, rights activists puncture police implementation, say it’s killing free speech

• ‘It’s a democratic refurbishment of Decree 2 of 1984’

By Oluseye Ojo, Lukman Olabiyi, Juliana Taiwo-Obalonye and Aloysius Atta

Nigeria, in recent years, has made remarkable strides into the digital age, with citizens fully embracing the endless possibilities that the internet has to offer.

Access to the web has transformed everyday life from commerce to social networking, With the noticeable increase in internet penetration, Nigeria has become a hotbed of cyber-activities.

But records have shown that the allure of the internet has sparked a troubling rise in cybercrimes. A landscape once characterised solely by opportunities is now plagued by fraudulent schemes, predatory practices, and criminal enterprises that are increasingly sophisticated, which has given room for the enactment of Cybercrimes Act in Nigeria.

Cybercrime, according to experts, refers to criminal activity in which computers or computer networks are used as a tool, or a target in carrying out illegal activities.

The cybercrimes, according to findings, include illegal hacking, phishing, malware, and DoS, DDoS attacks, and cyber-bullying.

But Nigerians have raised concerns that some law enforcement agencies have zeroed down on cyber-bullying, promptly arresting, detaining and prosecuting anyone that posts texts, audio, audio-visual items and pictures on the cyber space purportedly against some important personalities.

Arrested for cybercrime

The Nigerian cybercrime narrative has gained prominence through cases such as that of Hammed Olamilekan, a blogger known as Labash. He was detained for 138 days for publishing alleged criminal records of a governor in Nigeria.

Martins Vincent Otse, better known as VeryDarkMan, also caught headlines when he was charged with cyberstalking and defamation, accused of spreading false information about celebrities.

In February 2025,  Olumide Ogunsanwo, a popular TikToker known as Sea King, was arrested for allegedly cyberbullying Pastor Enoch Adeboye of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG). Sea King’s comments, which were critical of Adeboye’s spiritual guidance, specifically urging a 100-day fast for members of the Christian denomination, sparked outrage among some Christian groups, leading to a formal petition and subsequent arrest.

But Adeboye himself said he did not authorise the arrest of Ogunsanwo and called for his release, though the church as an entity insisted that due process must be followed in the investigation of the matter.

A Christian youth group, under the aegis of the Concerned Christian Youth Forum, claimed responsibility for writing a petition to the Lagos State Police Command, which led to Ogunsanwo’s arrest. The convener of the forum, James Adama, explained that the petition was written in response to the increasing cyber harassment against respected religious leaders.

A Nigerian comedian, Chidi Uzoma, known as Baba De Baba, was arrested after he allegedly defamed actress May Edochie. The scandal escalated as Edochie accused him of cyberstalking. He was arrested via a sting operation by the police after weeks of surveillance.

Similarly, a musician, Idowu Smart Emmanuel, popularly known as Lil Smart, faced police action after making claims that his former boss, Naira Marley, had attempted to kidnap him. Following the singer’s arrest, he admitted that the allegations were baseless.

There is another case showing how political dissent could probably connect with cybercrime. A nurse and activist, Olamide Thomas, was also in the police net for comments deemed threatening towards political figures, including Seyi Tinubu, President Bola Tinubu’s son. Thomas, well-known for her outspoken views, was charged under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Amendment Act. The case is still before a Federal High Court.

The Chairman of Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Oyo State Council, Chief Ademola Babalola, noted that while Nigerians must not be irresponsible in their comments, whether on the cyberspace or offline, there must be a demarcation on what constitutes cyberbullying and responsible freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

But he said freedom of expression is not absolute anywhere in the world. He urged Nigerians to familiarise themselves with the law on defamation before posting messages.

“If left unregulated, the frameworks in the Cybercrime Act risk curbing freedom of expression and stifling the very digital ecosystem that has spurred innovation. The lines between legitimate expression and cyberbullying is not clear. It is essential for lawmakers, stakeholders, and citizens to constructively engage in dialogue that will balance accountability with civil liberties,” he noted.

Legal experts: Cybercrime law being abuse to stifle free speech

But many lawyers have criticised the implementation of the cybercrime law by the law enforcement agencies, especially the Nigeria Police, insisting that it is being abused to kill freedom of expression as guaranteed by the constitution.

Dave Ajetumobi, former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja branch, raised concerns over the impact of the Cybercrime Law, describing it as a “democratic refurbishment” of Decree 2 of 1984. Ajetumobi criticised the law for enabling government officials and politicians to silence opponents and stifle dissent, warning that it is being used as a tool to cover up corruption and suppress free speech.

According to Ajetumobi, what were once legally defamatory issues are now being framed as cyberbullying, leading to legal action against individuals who voice opposition. He stressed that the law is increasingly being weaponised by politicians and their allies to undermine the constitutional right to free speech.

In light of these concerns, Ajetumobi called on civil society organisations to push for an amendment to the law, urging the National Assembly (NASS) to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld. He recommended that individuals who feel defamed should seek redress through traditional defamation lawsuits rather than relying on cybercrime legislation.

Maduka Onwukeme, a legal practitioner and rights activist, also expressed worry about the misuse of the Cybercrimes Act, particularly its provisions on cyber-stalking and cyber-bullying, to silence government critics.

Speaking on the issue, Onwukeme highlighted that these offences were introduced under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act in 2015 and later amended in 2024. The law, originally intended to protect cyberspace, has increasingly been used to criminalize freedom of expression, he argued.

Onwukeme pointed out the lack of successful convictions for cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying charges, particularly in cases involving social media criticisms. Despite numerous charges, no defendant has been successfully convicted under these sections, he noted. 

He also criticized the courts for their role in the abuse of power, noting that stringent bail conditions often result in lengthy detentions for defendants, even when charges are eventually dropped or proven unfounded.

“The courts can curb this abuse of power by granting bail on more liberal terms for those charged with cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying,” Onwukeme said. 

He emphasised that such charges are often used as a tool for intimidation rather than for conviction, with government critics being the primary targets.

Onwukeme also called on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to take action against government lawyers who file these charges, or those who initiate prosecutions for what are essentially civil matters, such as defamation. He urged the NBA to petition the Disciplinary Body to sanction such actions.

Many of the cases involving cyber-stalking and cyber-bullying, according to Onwukeme, are related to civil matters like defamation of character. 

He stressed that these should be handled as civil infractions, not as criminal cases weaponised by government officials or wealthy elites to protect their reputations.

Also speaking on the issue, legal practitioner and rights activist, Ige Asimudara, also raised concerns over the misuse of Nigeria’s Cybercrime Prohibition Act 2015. The law, originally enacted to combat online crimes such as phishing, business email compromise, identity theft, and cyber-stalking, is now being exploited to stifle free speech, according to Asimudara.

 Asimudara emphasised that the law was designed to regulate cyberspace and curb cyber-related crimes, not to suppress criticism or dissent.

He pointed out that politicians and those in positions of power often manipulate laws for personal or political gain.

Asimudara expressed particular concern over the recent arrest and detention of Mr Omoyele Sowore, who was allegedly held based on a social media post that harshly criticized the retention of the Inspector General of Police in office. 

He argued that such actions contradict the original purpose of the law.

Hear him: “As a society, we must recognise that social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok have become key outlets for expression, complementing or even replacing traditional media. It is unacceptable to use the Cybercrime Prohibition Act as a tool to arrest or detain individuals for expressing their views,” Asimudara said.

The legal expert stressed that the provisions regarding cyber-stalking and bullying were meant to target individuals involved in blackmail, hate speech, and other harmful online activities, not to silence critics, journalists, or activists. “The law was never meant to gag free speech, which is guaranteed under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution,” he added.

Asimudara warned that such actions are reminiscent of the oppressive tactics of Nigeria’s military past, cautioning that those in power must respect the rule of law and the democratic rights of citizens. “This is not a police state. Those who misuse their power will face the full force of the law,” he concluded.

Another lawyer and right activist, Kabiru Akingbolu also aligned himself with the submissions of others, noting that the police are only using the law to harass and intimate innocent citizens.

The handling of Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act by law enforcement has raised significant concerns, particularly regarding its implications for free speech and civil liberties.

Activists speak

In an interview with Saturday Sun, Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, addressed critical questions surrounding the law’s application and its potential misuse by authorities.

Enacted in 2015, the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, he said, was designed to create a comprehensive framework for combating cyber-related offenses such as identity theft, online fraud, and hacking. However, Rafsanjani pointed out that certain sections of the law are being exploited by those in power to suppress dissent and intimidate critics of the government. He emphasized that while the law aims to protect citizens from cyber threats, it is increasingly used as a tool for oppression rather than justice.

One of the most alarming trends noted by Rafsanjani is the swift arrest of individuals who criticize public officials. He stated that this practice reflects a troubling deviation from democratic norms, where citizens are harassed for expressing their views. This misuse of power not only violates constitutional rights but also fosters an environment of fear among those who wish to voice their opinions on governance, he stated. 

Rafsanjani argued that the focus of cybercrime legislation should primarily be on financial fraud and other online criminal activities. “However, vague definitions within the law allow authorities to target activists and journalists under the guise of enforcing cybercrime regulations. This misapplication highlights a systemic issue where laws intended for protection are instead wielded against those advocating for accountability and transparency.”

Concerns have been raised about the similarities between current practices and past military regimes, particularly regarding arbitrary arrests without due process. Rafsanjani likened these actions to Decree 2 from 1984, which allowed for detentions without trial, warning that such measures undermine Nigeria’s democratic framework and threaten civic space.

To combat these abuses, Rafsanjani urged citizens to actively defend their rights through legal channels. He highlighted the importance of challenging unlawful arrests and advocating legislative reforms that promote free speech. Additionally, he called on civil society organisations and media outlets to raise awareness about violations of constitutional rights to ensure accountability from authorities.

Stanley Okafor is the Executive Director, Leadership Orientation and Basic Rights Advocacy Centre. He’s also Principal Partner, SpitFire Law Firm, Awka Anambra State.

In an interview with Saturday Sun, he stated: “The Cyber Crimes Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2015 has as its core emphasis the need to protect critical national information infrastructure with a view to ensuring stability of sensitive government and other digital files from the activities of unethical Internet users.

“It is not strange news that the world over, unethical persons on the information super highway have time and again inflicted peril on critical government files, and those of many other corporate organisations, stored digitally mostly by means of computer technology.

“However, it does appear that the Act imported controversial and perhaps emasculating provisions in Section 24 thereof which provided for matters relating to Cyber-stalking.

“Such  Section 24 of the Act made generous provisions which made the publication of words considered offensive, annoying, insulting or otherwise unverifiable, an offence. Sub Section 2 of that Section 24 even makes publication of words by computer systems considered to be bullying or harassing of another person an offense.

“Accordingly, these porous provisions have been exploited by ungainly politicians to gag the constitutional right to freedom of expression by Nigerians, and to inhibit the further right to constructive criticism of government failures.

“Indeed these provisions are akin to the infamous Decree Numbers 2 and 4 of the Buhari military era. There is therefore a need for an amendment of the Act, particularly those controversial provisions which have been exploited by ungainly politicians to stifle public opinion and suppress criticism. In a yawning democracy such as ours, the need for constitutionally compliant laws cannot be over emphasized.

“The police as an institution of state needs to tutor itself on the focal points of the Act, and civil society has a large role to play here in partnering the police to ensure that flimsy charges from Sect 24 of the Act do not continue to emerge.

“In like manner, civil society must launch sustained campaign of awareness and regularity of conduct targeted at political office holders, especially those in the executive, to refrain from using the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act as tool of suppression against the people.”

In his view, Emeka Umeagbalasi, Board Chairman, International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), was also unsparing of the authorities in their implementation of the cybercrime law.

His words: “The law is a veiled return to Decree 2 to deny people their rights to freedom of expression, more so in situations that people are now clamped into detention and crooked remand orders used to detain such people indefinitely.

“The Cyber stalking Act of 2015 has gone through the process of amendment. It is one act of the National Assembly that can be described as being repugnant to natural justice, democracy and rule of law. The Act was enacted for the purpose of stifling the civic space by the establishment-those operating in the legislative and executive arms of government.  

“Any Act of National Assembly that is classified as Executive Bill coming from either Presidency or Ministry on behalf of the federal government of Nigeria always contains some obnoxious provisions and the sponsors of such bill are known for facilitating the bill and have it passed by the National Assembly expeditiously but with malicious intent.

“The bone of contention in that Cyber Stalking Act is sSection 24 where all manner of draconian imputations that are clearly in contravention of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution are outlined.

“It is in these provisions in Sections 24 that the police rely on to engage in all manner of arrest and detention whereas the penalties prescribed in the act doesn’t warrant the arrest and continued detention of citizens extra judicially like we see in Nigeria presently.

“Offences in Nigeria are classified into three –simple offences, misdemeanour and capital offences-felonious acts. Offences under Cyberstalking Act falls under misdemeanour and not under capital offenses.

“This particular act has been amended in February 2024 and some of the obnoxious provisions have been deleted but many are not aware of this.

“What we are saying here is that there is need to carry out more awareness on the amended version so that any provisions still infringing on the citizens rights are trashed out into the dustbin where it rightly belongs.

“The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria says in Section 1 (3) says that the provisions of the constitution is supreme and doesn’t rub shoulder with any other law. In case of any conflict with any other law of the federation, that any other law because null and void.  Technically speaking, the only obnoxious line remaining in the amended law is section 24(1) of the principal act which has been amended to include “Pornographic contents, the pornographic perpetrator knows it to be false and keep spreading it and for purpose of causing breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life, causing such message to be sent “etc.

“The Act has been amended and restricted to the above line mentioned. So all these intimidation, injury, criminal, enmity, ill will etc has been deleted in the new act.

“Advocacy is the easiest way to reshape the society and this is where human rights campaigners, activists, media practitioners should all rise up and checkmate the excesses of the law enforcement agents and the government in handling the offenders of this law.  The bad law will remain unless people take it up with government.

“Citizens can defend their rights only by knowing about these laws, the provisions and the amendments and how to go about protecting yourself from abuse of the law. Anything that offends the fundamental human rights of the people in Nigeria is well taken care of by Section 46 of the constitution which empowers anyone who feels that his rights have been breached to go to court and use other means within the ambit of the law to seek redress.