Nigerian Cybercrime Act: Here Are What To Know 

The rise in online journalism in Nigeria can be directly linked to the increase in internet access. Since the telecommunications sector was deregulated in 2001, internet usage in Nigeria has grown significantly. As of 2021, internet penetration in Nigeria was at 55.4%, and as of August 2023, mobile internet subscriptions had reached 220.7 million, according to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

This internet growth has also bolstered press freedom in Nigeria. However, like in many modern democracies, press freedom is not absolute. The 1999 Constitution (amended) places limits on this freedom under Section 45, which legalizes any law that censors press freedom in the interest of national security or to protect the rights of others. These restrictions apply to print, electronic, and online media. Existing laws such as the Criminal Code and the Cybercrimes Act regulate press freedom under these constitutional provisions. While the Criminal Code restricts traditional press freedom, the Cybercrimes Act, introduced in 2015, addresses cyber-related offenses like cyberstalking. This study focuses on assessing the Cybercrimes Act of 2015 and its implications for online press freedom in Nigeria.

The Cybercrimes Act of 2015, signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on May 15, 2015, is Nigeria’s first law specifically targeting cybersecurity. It provides a comprehensive legal, regulatory, and institutional framework for prohibiting, preventing, detecting, prosecuting, and punishing cybercrimes in Nigeria. Cybercrimes involve using computers to commit offenses, such as accessing personal information or exploiting the internet for malicious purposes. Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act aims to regulate such activities.

Impact

Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 addresses “offensive” and “annoying” statements on the internet, prescribing fines ranging from NGN 7 million to 25 million and imprisonment from one to ten years, depending on the severity of the offense. The government has used this section to suppress opposition views in online media. Stories published online have been deemed “offensive” or “annoying” under Section 24, even when factual. Additionally, reports initially published in traditional media but rebroadcast online have faced government backlash.

One notable case is that of Daniel Ojukwu, a journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), who was illegally arrested for allegedly writing a false story. Authorities have used cyberstalking accusations to harass and press charges against online journalists and ordinary Nigerians expressing unfavorable views.

On September 16, 2023, Chioma Okoli posted a review of Nagiko tomato puree on her Facebook page, criticizing its taste. The post drew mixed reactions and led to Okoli’s arrest by plainclothes officers for allegedly violating cybercrime laws. This case illustrates how the law, intended to secure information and protect against cyberstalking, is often used against journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens exercising free speech.

Many arrests under the Cybercrimes Act never lead to court charges, and those that do are often dropped due to weak claims. Although cyberstalking laws aim to control false news, they have been used to prosecute factual online reporting. Despite the Freedom of Information Act of 2011 guaranteeing access to public records, government agencies routinely refuse information requests, and online reporters covering sensitive issues like corruption face criminal prosecution.

Criticisms

In February, the Cybercrimes Act was amended following a 2022 ECOWAS court ruling that it violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. One significant change involved Section 24, previously used to target dissidents. The amended section narrows the offense to computer messages that are pornographic or knowingly false, aiming to cause law and order breakdowns or threaten life. While this refinement is an improvement, the potential for abuse remains.

Another concern is surveillance abuse under the law. Section 38 of the Cybercrimes Act does not explicitly require law enforcement to obtain a court-issued warrant to access “traffic data” and “subscriber information” from service providers. This gap is particularly troubling, given the police’s history of using journalists’ call data to track and arrest them.

While amendments to the Cybercrimes Act address some issues, concerns about press freedom and misuse of the law persist in Nigeria.