Thesearchlight.com

By The Searchlight Investigation Desk / May 10, 2026

Nigeria’s Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, amended in February 2024, was enacted to combat online fraud, hacking, cyberterrorism, and related threats in a rapidly digitizing society. Its objectives were legitimate: protecting critical infrastructure, curbing financial crimes, and addressing genuine harms in the digital space. Yet, in practice, particularly under the Tinubu administration, key provisions, especially around Section 24, have been weaponized to harass critics, journalists, activists, and ordinary social media users. This creates a chilling effect on free expression far beyond the law’s stated intent.

The Problematic Core: Section 24 and Vague Language

The original Section 24 criminalized sending messages via computer systems that were “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” or known to be false, if done to cause “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety.” Penalties included fines up to N7 million or three years imprisonment (or both). A separate subsection addressed bullying, threats, or harassment.

This wording was dangerously broad and subjective. Who defines “annoyance” or “grossly offensive”? Public officials and their allies often interpreted criticism of governance, corruption allegations, or policy failures as fitting these categories. The ECOWAS Court of Justice in 2022 ruled aspects of it arbitrary, vague, and repressive, ordering amendments to align with constitutional free speech protections (Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution) and international obligations.

The 2024 Amendment Act, signed by President Tinubu, narrowed Section 24. It now focuses more on content known to be false intended to cause a “breakdown of law and order” or pose a “threat to life,” alongside pornographic or menacing material. Penalties remain stiff. However, critics argue the vagueness persists: terms like “breakdown of law and order” remain open to abusive interpretation, especially when applied to protests, exposés on corruption, or sharp commentary against the president or appointees.

Persistent Misuse Despite Reforms

Post-amendment data is damning. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) documented at least eight journalists arrested, prosecuted, or detained under the Act in the months following the changes. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and others report continued targeting of investigative reporters. Examples include:

– Daniel Ojukwu (Foundation for Investigative Journalism): Detained for 10 days in 2024 over a report on alleged corruption involving a presidential aide.

– Arrests of journalists like Fejiro Oliver, Olurotimi Olawale, and others for reporting on powerful figures or institutions.

– Activists and ordinary citizens, such as those criticizing economic policies or posting protest-related content, facing cyberstalking or false information charges.

SERAP and the Nigeria Guild of Editors have publicly urged the Tinubu government to stop using the Act against journalists and critics, highlighting arbitrary arrests and detentions.

The pattern is clear: While real cyber-fraudsters sometimes evade justice, the state apparatus (DSS, police National Cybercrime Centre) moves with alacrity against dissenting voices. This inverts the law’s purpose, defamation should primarily be a civil matter resolved in court with the claimant proving falsity and malice, not a criminal tool for state intimidation.

Broader Implications

1. Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Journalism: Self-censorship is rising. Investigative reporting on corruption, insecurity, or economic failures risks DSS visits or prolonged detention. This undermines accountability in a democracy already strained by hardship and insecurity.

2. Erosion of Rule of Law: Selective enforcement politicizes security agencies. The DSS monitoring social media for “critics” while core cybercrimes and physical insecurity persist suggests priorities tilted toward regime protection rather than public safety.

3. International Reputation and Rights Obligations: Nigeria risks further condemnation from bodies like Amnesty International, Freedom House, and diplomatic missions urging reform. Vague laws violate proportionality principles under the African Charter and ICCPR.

4. Economic and Democratic Costs: A repressed digital space hampers innovation, citizen engagement, and investor confidence. It fosters resentment and underground discourse rather than open debate.

Dadiyata’s disappearance and similar cases of vanished or harassed critics serve as grim reminders that online speech can lead to offline peril. Even if not directly charged under the Act, the broader ecosystem of surveillance and intimidation amplifies its deterrent power.

The Path Forward

The Cybercrimes Act needs deeper reform: decriminalize defamation entirely (leaving it to civil suits), define offenses with precision (requiring clear intent to incite violence or specific harm), and add safeguards against abuse, such as judicial warrants for arrests and penalties for malicious complaints by officials. Training for security agencies and independent oversight are essential.

Public officials aggrieved by criticism should sue in open court, bearing the burden of proof. The state’s role is to protect citizens from genuine cyber threats, not shield itself from scrutiny. Until these distinctions are restored, the Act will remain less a shield for society and more a sword against dissent, undermining the very democracy it claims to serve.

The Searchlight will continue to expose this inversion of justice. Nigerians deserve security from crime, not from uncomfortable truths.