1 week Ago By Tunde Oyesina
Of late, arrests and detention of journalists have become the hallmark of the President Bola Tinubu administration. In this analysis, TUNDE OYESINA argues that this development which draws fillip from the Cyber Crime Act, not only stifles free speech but also represents a regression to military era approach Press freedom comes across as one of the pillars of democracy. But in recent times, this mainstay has been threatened with the frequent arrest and detention of journalists under the President Bola Tinubu administration.
In the last six months, no fewer than 20 journalists – the highest in the last decade – have been locked up by security agents. Interestingly, Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria guarantees freedom of expression and the press. Apart from this, Section 22 of the same constitution also places on the press the responsibility of holding the government and people to account at all times.
In the same vein, other international treaties and conventions, to which Nigeria is a signatory, also recognise the right of the press as fundamental to the existence of democracy. Since assuming office in 2023, however, President Bola Tinubu’s government has, through its various security agents, chosen not to respect the rights of journalists. This is seen in the numerous indiscriminate arrests and invitations of Nigerian journalists by the police and other security agencies.
The level of harassment of journalists is by the day becoming alarming. Long list of victims On August 5, plainclothes policemen numbering about 15 broke into a hotel room in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, occupied by Isaac Bristol, a microblogger and leak journalist known popularly as @PIDOMNigeria, and abducted him. His abductors then subsequently transported him to the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) in Abuja.
Prior to this trip to the FCID, he had been in solitary confinement for at least six days in an anti-kidnapping unit. After spending several days at the anti-kidnapping unit, he was again transferred to a different facility. While at the anti-kidnapping unit, he was thrown into a “hole”, denied food, water and access to other human beings, and also kept in handcuffs all through.
The leak journalist has been accused of a breach of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), terrorism financing, espionage, treasonable felony, computer wire fraud and unauthorised removal of classified documents. Also on August 14, ‘Fisayo Soyombo, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), voluntarily reported at the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre (NPF-NCC) in Abuja based on publicly available information that “he was wanted by the police”. Soyombo honoured the invitation in the company of Abimbola Ojenike, FIJ’s lawyer.
He was subsequently kept for eight hours before being eventually released on bail. As part of the bail conditions, he must report at the NPF-NCCC headquarters in Abuja for bi-weekly meetings. It was later revealed that the police extended the invitation to Soyombo as a result of a story FIJ had published on the corrupt and sharp practices of Orelope Adefulire, a former Lagos State deputy governor, while she was senior special assistant on sustainable development goals (SSAP-SDGs) under the Muhammadu Buhari administration.
Similarly , on August 15, Abdulrasheed Hammad, a freelance journalist, received a phone call from an official of the Department of State Services (DSS) in Sokoto State. During the phone conversation, the official who introduced himself as Muhammed Ahmed told the journalist that the invitation was connected to his investigative story that had been published by media outlet . In the story, Hammad exposed how many sachet water factories that were not NAFDAC-registered produced contaminated water that was meant for public consumption in the state.
When the journalist told the DSS official that he was no longer in Sokoto, the latter resorted to issuing threats, saying the DSS would see to it that Hammad got arrested. The official again called the reporter on August 19 to re-echo his threat. In the same vein, Adejuwon Soyinka, a journalist with the Conversation Africa, was arrested in Lagos by the DSS on Sunday after he was placed on a watchlist by an unnamed agency.
Soyinka, the Conversation Africa’s West Africa editor, was detained for six hours after the DSS officials stopped him on the basis that something was wrong with his passport. The journalist had just arrived at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos from a United Kingdom (UK) trip when DSS officials accosted him. He was detained for six hours.
During questioning, the DSS officials told the journalist that his name had been placed on a watch list by another unnamed state security agency for reasons that were not explained. Soyinka’s passport was, however, withheld pending confirmation by the DSS that the unnamed agency that placed him on a watch list was no longer interested in him. In May, Daniel Ojukwu was equally arrested by the security agencies.
According to Ojukwu ‘s employer, Nigeria’s Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) said its reporter, Daniel Ojukwu, went missing on May 1, but it was only informed two days later that he had been detained by police under the Cybercrime law. FIJ said Ojukwu’s arrest was related to a November story that exposed government corruption. The police spokesperson Muyiwa Adejobi later told reporters that Ojukwu was arrested by the Nigeria Police National Cybercrime Centre based on a petition filed against him.
Earlier in February , four journalists from the online news site Informant247 – Adisa-Jaji Azeez, Salihu Ayatullahi, Salihu Shola Taofeek, and Abdulrahman Taye Damilola were arrested, detained, and charged with conspiracy, cyberstalking, and defamation. The charges leveled against them followed a complaint lodged by the rector of Kwara State Polytechnic, Engineer Abdul Jimoh Muhammed.The complaint stemmed from reports that were published by the news site on November 10, 2023, and February 1, 2024, alleging that the rector had made false claims about the institution’s financial status and commissioned shoddy project work.
On February 6, the Kwara State police invited Adisa-Jaji Azeez and Salihu Ayatullahi for questioning, only for them to be arrested, detained overnight, and presented before the court. In view of this , a Civil Society Group , IPI Africa Advocacy and Partnerships Lead Nompilo Simanje had then called for the charges against the journalists to be dropped, and emphasized that journalists must be free to work without fear of intimidation and legal reprisals. According to her , “this is the latest example of cybercrime laws in Nigeria being used to target journalists.
“The authorities in Nigeria should amend their legislation to align with regional and international standards. The continued use of such laws like criminal defamation and vague provisions of the cybercrimes act against journalists pose an ongoing risk to media freedom and freedom of expression. “It is appalling that the Nigerian authorities continue to enforce Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, which was declared by the ECOWAS Court of Justice to be inconsistent and incompatible with Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
Asides this four journalists, several other journalists in Nigeria have been arrested, detained, and arraigned in recent years on charges stemming from the Cybercrime Act. This included the 34-day detention of journalist Agba Jalingo and the jailing of Saint Mienpamo Onitsha, who was later released after four months in jail. Then the case four journalists adds to an already long list of media practitioners and journalists who have been prosecuted under Nigeria’s Cybercrime law.
Courts uphold press freedom Meanwhile , in 2022, the ECOWAS Court of Justice ordered the Nigerian government to amend the controversial Section 24 of its cybercrime law which is widely viewed as authorities’ weapon for muzzling citizens’ rights to freedom of expression. The court gave the decision on March 25, 2022 in Accra, Ghana, a statement by the court’s information unit stated on Monday. It ruled that the contested Section 24 of Nigeria’s Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015 “is not in conformity with Articles 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
” Keikura Bangura, the presiding judge, who read the court’s decision, asked the Nigerian government to amend the legal provision “in order to ensure conformity with the country’s obligations” under the ACHPR and ICCPR. The decision was delivered in a suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), one of the frontline civil society organisations in Nigeria. SERAP had, in its suit, challenged the legality and compatibility of Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2005 in relation to the guarantees of freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 9 of the ACHPR and Article 19 of the ICCPR, respectively.
They said Section 24 of the cybercrime law criminalises sending a message via a computer system which was “grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” or to send a message or cause any such message or matter to be so sent; or to send a message, knowing it to be false for the purpose of “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another” or to cause such a message to be sent. It particularly alleged that Section 24 violated the rights to freedom of expression, information and other rights of human rights defenders, activists, bloggers, journalists, broadcasters and social media users through the repressive use, interpretation and by agents of the respondent, the same being vaguely worded and ambiguous. The applicant contended that since the passage of the Act, the Nigerian government and its agents had used its provisions to harass, intimidate, arbitrarily arrest and detain and unfairly prosecute users of the social media, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, broadcasters and bloggers who express their views perceived to be critical of the Government both at the Federal and State levels.
The applicant listed 12 high profile cases of the alleged victims of harassment, intimidation, arrest unlawful detention, prosecution and imprisonment of journalists, bloggers, broadcasters, social media users, human rights defenders and activists, by the respondent, its agents and several states of Nigeria between August 2015 and November 2018, for alleged cyber-stalking and urged the Court to make several declarations and orders that will underscore the incompatibility of the Act with the provisions of the two international instruments. In its defence, the respondent (the Nigerian government) urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was misconceived, adding that the prayers sought were not grantable in law. In particular, the respondent contended that the application was not only pending before the national court for the same reliefs but that the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act must be submitted to domestic courts and not the ECOWAS Court as this is not within its competence as it concerns the interpretation of extant laws.
Moreover, the respondent contended that the Act was not only in line with Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution, but was subjected to the requisite constitutional and legal processes before its passage. It said the applicant was aware of the processes leading up to the passage of the Act into law but did not protest it at the time. The respondent argued that the Act was not enacted to muzzle the freedom of expression in Nigeria, but to curtail the activities of criminals carried out on the internet.
Reacting to this , Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, said ‘It has become illegal to arrest journalists for cyberstalking, insult, causing annoyance, offensive message and criminal intimidation reiterated that, ” the Economic Community of West Africa States, ECOWAS, Court declared section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 illegal and directed the federal government to amend the section to make the law conform with the fundamental right of Nigerian citizens to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. “However, in the cases of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative (Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/53/18) and Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (Suit Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative (Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19), the ECOWAS Court declared section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 illegal and directed the federal government to amend the section to make the law conform with the fundamental right of Nigerian citizens to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
“From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the Police and other security agencies lack the power to arrest, detain and prosecute Nigerian citizens for the so- called offences of ‘cyberstalking’, ”insult’, ‘causing annoyance’, ‘sending offensive messages’, and ‘criminal intimidation’. ” Consequently, all pending cases filed on the basis of the repealed aspects of section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 should be discontinued without any further delay”. Another lawyer, Onesimus Ruya in his own reaction opined that the Nigerian cybercrime law seems to be designed to cripple freedom of expression and hinder journalists from performing their duties.
“Whoever sponsored the law has so many things in mind at the point of conception. But definitely, it is targeted at Nigerian journalists and infringes on Section 39 of the Constitution. “Sections 24 and 25 of the Act were specifically targeted at journalists, noting that the government, politicians and other influential members of the society have used these sections to harass and arrest journalists through the police.
“Part of Sections 24 of the Act says, “A person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer or network that – is grossly offensive, pornographic, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such damage or matter to be so sent etc. “These are the most potent aspects of the law that the government and politicians use against journalists and bloggers. These sections say anyone who writes anything considered offensive or abusive by anyone.
“It is just targeted at the journalists; we have cases where those sections have been used to arrest many journalists by the police. “It is not only for politicians but anyone that has the strength and the means to use the section against journalists. This law has no definition, it is nebulous, barbaric and should not operate in the 21st century.
That is our submission at the court of law, Why our cybercrime law is still the way it is because it has not been tested in the court”. Also commenting , another lawyer , Emmanuel Ekwe noted that ,”Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act is coming under criticism for not striking the right balance between national security and press freedom. “Provisions within the Act have been exploited to stifle freedom of expression, leading to concerns about the potential suppression of dissenting voices and investigative journalism.
“In the suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), the ECOWAS Court ruled that Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act is arbitrary, unlawful, and requires amendment. The section contains terms like “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” and “obscene,” which are not clearly defined and can be exploited to target journalists or individuals expressing dissenting opinions. SERAP cited 12 cases of alleged harassment, intimidation, arrest, unlawful detention, prosecution, and imprisonment of journalists and broadcasters in Nigeria between August 2015 and November 2018.
“Other problematic provisions include Section 16(3), which allows for the punishment of unauthorized interception of communications, potentially enabling the targeting of journalists’ communications without appropriate legal safeguards. “This could lead to the intimidation of whistleblowers and the deterrence of investigative journalism. Section 26(1)(c)’s broad language may also be exploited to target journalists expressing controversial opinions.
Section 38 (2b)(3)(4) could compel intermediaries to self-censor or remove content deemed in violation of the Act, even if such content represents legitimate journalism or commentary. “The National Assembly should prioritize amending the broadly and vaguely worded provisions of the Cybercrimes Act, particularly Sections 16, 24, 26, and 38. This would require collaboration between the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy, as well as agencies like the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), media organizations, and media policy experts.
“The Act and other legislation should provide safeguards for whistleblowers and media sources, balance liability for intermediaries and self-censorship, decriminalize defamation (addressing it through civil remedies), and create provisions against potential misuse of the Act to target critical journalists and media organizations. “Additionally, independent oversight mechanisms should be established to monitor the enforcement of the Cybercrimes Act and ensure that any restrictions on press freedom are subject to judicial review. “Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act currently fails to strike the right balance between national security and press freedom.
By amending the Act to address the controversial provisions, Nigeria can better protect freedom of expression and uphold its commitment to international human rights standards. “It is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to collaborate in order to prevent the suppression of press freedom and ensure the nation’s core interest in truth and prosperity”. A Law teacher , Dr.
Basil Onyewe while reacting called for the urgent amendment of the Cybercrimes Act 2015. “It is, therefore, crucial to submit and caution that the imperative of enacting the Cybercrime Act was not to regulate the activities of journalists. Journalism is a renowned and decent profession with high ethical standards.
It is one of the noblest and oldest since the days Rome circa 59 Before Christ. “However, no one who indulges in the activities criminalised by the Cybercrime act can be rightly referred to as a journalist. “That said, it is sad to note that the Government and the political class in Nigeria have deliberately manipulated the provisions of the Cybercrime Act to police journalists and suppress freedom of expression and thoughts, while abandoning the primary objective of the law.
“Authorities in Government have attempted to silence opposition views in the online media through arbitrary interpretation and abuse of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2015, particularly section 24 of the Act which addresses offensive and annoying statements on the internet otherwise known as cyberstalking, and several journalists, bloggers and individuals have been arrested in this regard. “Stories, articles and expressions published online have been deemed offensive, insulting or annoying with actionable consequences under the said section even when the stories are factual. While some stories published through traditional media outlets (print and electronic) that were never sanctioned by the government have been attacked by the same government upon being rebroadcast or republished through online platforms.
“The government considers these reposts offensive and libelous because of the rising influence of online platforms in Nigeria as major sources of information dissemination. “Clearly, the government has used the accusation of cyberstalking to harass and press charges against online and traditional journalists for expressing views that are considered unfavourable to the government as some examples will illustrate. “In order to create a fair and egalitarian society , the law should be looked into so as not to infringe on the rights to information.
It is only the synergy of such demonstrable acts in good faith by government and the media that a proper and rewarding balance can be found in the media space”. —.
