What is the cost of freedom of expression
The weaponization of law: Nigeria and the case of cybercrime
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
A Federal High Court judge in Abuja, Justice Obiora Egwuatu, had, on September 9, made a critical observation about the continued weaponisation of the cybercrime law by security agencies.
He noted that cyberstalking charges have become a “new oil well” for law enforcement agencies, particularly the police.
Justice Egwuatu, whose court has likely handled a plethora of such cases, spoke out after a police prosecutor strongly opposed granting bail to a young man arrested and detained over a view he expressed on social media.
The prosecutor had insisted that the rampant nature of such cases made his opposition to the defendant’s release on bail imperative.
The court, however, directed the police lawyer’s attention to extant laws establishing that offences such as cyberstalking are ordinarily bailable.
The judge cited sections 158 and 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 to the prosecutor.
The weaponisation of laws, and by extension bail, is not uncommon in courts today.
Justice Egwuatu’s observation captured something many Nigerian journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens already knew: a law written to combat fraud and hacking has become one of the most reliable tools for punishing speech.
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act was signed into law in 2015 as Nigeria’s first comprehensive cybercrime statute, aimed at tackling computer fraud, identity theft, and attacks on digital infrastructure.
Buried within it, however, was Section 24 — the “cyberstalking” clause — which originally criminalized online messages deemed “grossly offensive” or intended to cause “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or a “breakdown of law and order.”
Conviction carried a fine of up to ₦7 million and up to three years in prison.
However, human rights lawyers and activists were quick to point out that the wording of the section appeared too elastic, potentially covering almost anything an influential person considered irritating.
Critics argued that Section 24 of the 2015 Cybercrime Act was a veiled attempt to criminalize free speech, its vague and subjective language granting enforcement agencies excessively wide discretion.
They said this must be weighed against Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Nigeria’s grundnorm, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Many journalists, bloggers, and social media users have since been arraigned and tried on cyberstalking charges for simply criticizing political officeholders or influential persons, or even for reviewing a product online.
Even though Nigerian courts acknowledged the inherent dangers associated with muzzling free speech in a democracy, none had the courage to strike down the contentious portion of the cybercrime law.
With no other option left, non-governmental organizations in the country, including the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative, filed cases before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), challenging the obnoxious provisions of the cybercrime law.
In a judgment delivered on July 10, 2020, the regional court ordered a repeal or modification of the law.
According to the ECOWAS Court: “The Defendant State (Nigeria), by adopting the provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act 2015, violated Articles 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
In the case marked ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/20, it held that Nigeria should either void or amend Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 in accordance with its obligations under the African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The court ruled that the cybercrime law was vague, arbitrary, and unlawful.
“Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act does not define the parameters or elements of the crime that it typifies. It cannot pass the test of legality since, by its nature, it will be arbitrary. Therefore, the Court finds Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act unlawful,” the court held in the case SERAP filed before it.
Buoyed by the verdict, the organization immediately wrote to the then-President, Muhammadu Buhari, urging him to instruct the Nigeria Police Force to stop using Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act to target and arbitrarily detain journalists and critics.
Even though the federal government failed to obey the judgment, as arrests, detention, and prosecution on cyberstalking charges continued, on February 28, 2024, under President Bola Tinubu, the law was slightly altered, giving birth to the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act.
The nebulous portion was amended to remove broad and subjective terms like “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” “obscene,” “menacing,” or “intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, or needless anxiety.”
It limited criminal liability for electronic messages to content that is explicitly pornographic, known to be false, and sent specifically to cause a breakdown of law and order or pose a threat to life.
However, the ₦7 million fine, imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or a combination of both, were retained as the sentence for anyone convicted under the law.
Despite the forced amendment of the law, critics argue that little has changed in practice, as key terms like “breakdown of law and order” remain undefined, leading to the arrest of alleged violators, especially media practitioners.
On November 10, 2025, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) condemned what it described as the increasing wave of violence, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests targeting journalists across the country based on the cybercrime law.
The Commission said it would intensify its efforts to monitor and document violations against journalists and also deepen its collaboration with media organizations and the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ).
Speaking at a media parley with journalists in Abuja, the Executive Secretary of the NHRC, Dr. Tony Ojukwu, SAN, said the rights body was strongly opposed to attempts aimed at shrinking the civic space through arrests and intimidation.
“Attacks on journalists are attacks on our democracy and on the public’s right to know. The NHRC remains steadfast in its mission to protect the rights of media professionals and to ensure accountability for perpetrators of such violations.
“Going forward, the Commission will intensify its efforts to monitor and document violations against journalists, while deepening collaboration with media organizations, the NUJ, civil society organizations, and international partners.
“Together, we aim to enhance safety awareness and establish rapid response mechanisms for the protection of journalists,” Ojukwu added.
The NUJ, through its National President, Alhassan Yahaya, who stressed a pressing need for decisive action, noted that the NHRC is uniquely positioned to address some of these challenges beyond issuing statements of condemnation.
“It is imperative that the Commission engage proactively with law enforcement agencies — because most times, they are the culprits — as well as with the judiciary, to create an environment where attacks on journalists are met with accountability.
“This will send a clear message that impunity will no longer be tolerated against media professionals, whatever the case may be,” the NUJ President stated.
As recently as September 16, 2026, the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) decried the increasing harassment, intimidation, and prosecution of journalists by security agencies.
In a communiqué issued in Kano and signed by its President, Mr. Eze Anaba, and General Secretary, Onuoha Ukeh, the body, after its standing committee meeting, warned that such actions could undermine press freedom and legitimate journalistic practice.
The forum particularly raised concerns over how security agencies use cybercrime legislation and other laws against journalists in the discharge of their lawful duties.
“The Guild expresses concern over the increasing violations of press freedom and the harassment, intimidation, and prosecution of journalists by security agencies through the use of cybercrime legislation and other laws that have the potential to undermine legitimate journalistic practice.”
Even though some pundits, including an Abuja-based lawyer, Vivian Igbor, argued that freedom of speech is not an absolute right, however, SERAP has since gone back to the ECOWAS court to contend that the revised cybercrime law is still being used to intimidate critics.
Pending decisive action to halt the deliberate erosion of inalienable rights through the manipulation of legislation by security agencies and “powerful” individuals, the oil well Justice Egwuatu joked about will likely keep flowing.
The post What is the cost of freedom of expression appeared first on Vanguard News.