Cybercrime encompasses criminal activities conducted in cyberspace, such as hacking, identity theft, online fraud, and cyberbullying, posing substantial threats to individuals, businesses, and governments globally. This leads to financial losses, breaches of privacy, and disruptions in digital operations.
The Cybercrime Act of Nigeria, passed in 2015 to combat online criminal activities, is a vital legislation in the contemporary digital era. While intended to safeguard individuals and organizations from cyber threats, there are growing apprehensions about potential misuse of the Act to target journalists.
Originally titled the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015, it underwent an amendment on February 28, 2024. The Act aims to, “(a) provide an effective and unified legal, regulatory and institutional framework for the prohibition, prevention, detection, prosecution and punishment of cybercrimes in Nigeria; (b) ensure the protection of critical national information infrastructure; and (c) promote cyber security and the protection of computer systems and networks, electronic communications, data and computer programs, intellectual property and privacy rights.”
Despite its objectives, the Act has been contentious, granting the Nigerian government extensive powers to control perceived online crimes. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have criticized the Act for its potential to target media professionals and impede freedom of speech.
Critics express concerns over the Act’s possible misapplication to suppress freedom of the press, especially targeting journalists. The Act’s broad and ambiguous language, combined with severe penalties for online-related offenses, raises fears of selective enforcement to intimidate and prosecute journalists critical of the government or influential entities.
Notably, journalists in Nigeria have encountered threats, arrests, and harassment linked to their online activities, with recent incidents attributed to the Act’s enforcement. The Act’s vague definitions of offenses like “cyberstalking” and “cyberbullying” are seen as potential tools for authorities to target journalists involved in legitimate journalistic practices online.
Highlighted Cases
Reports indicate that around 20 journalists and media organizations faced attacks during the general elections in February and March 2023. Nigeria’s press freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders places it at 112 out of 180 countries, illustrating a low level of press freedom compared to its 123rd rank in 2023.
RWB stated that “Nigeria remains one of West Africa’s most dangerous and challenging countries for journalists, who are consistently monitored, attacked, and unlawfully detained, as seen during the 2023 elections. Government interference in the news media is pronounced, involving pressures, harassment, and sometimes censorship, particularly during electoral campaigns.
Recent years have witnessed numerous violent assaults, arbitrary arrests, and fatal shootings of journalists in Nigeria, especially during electoral periods, with many crimes against journalists going unpunished due to a lack of protective mechanisms.
On May 4, Daniel Ojukwu, a journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, was arrested by the Nigerian Police Force and detained on allegations of violating the Cybercrime Act following his investigative report. Another journalist and publisher, Precious Eze, was arrested on May 27 at his residence in connection with a complaint from a prominent businessman and politician.
Moreover, on May 28, the Executive Director, reporter, and lawyers of the International Centre for Investigative Reporting were detained by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre, drawing criticism from the President of the Nigeria Guild of Editors, Eze Anaba, concerning the misuse of the Cybercrime Act.
Expert Insights
In addition to media practitioners, legal experts emphasize that curbing press freedom fuels corruption, impunity, and governance inefficacies.
The act of cybercrime is viewed as a conspiracy against the common will, interests, welfare, and security of the people, and is, therefore, considered anti-democratic.
A human rights lawyer, Kunle Edun, expressed concerns in an interview with NewsNow about the implications of the amended Cybercrime Act on the freedom of expression on social media, despite its aim to address electronic fraud and other crimes. He highlighted that certain provisions in the act restrict free speech, particularly referencing the deletion of the previous Section 24(1)(B) of the 2015 Act.
Edun pointed out that the provisions in Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Act pose threats to free speech as enshrined in section 39 of the Constitution. He emphasized that these provisions hinder the media from holding government officials accountable without the fear of prosecution under the Act for simply reporting the truth.
He also raised concerns about the weaponization of the act against free speech and responsible journalism, noting that it undermines the role of the media in ensuring government transparency. Edun stressed the importance of allowing space for rebuttals in responsible journalism, rather than criminalizing reporting on influential figures.
Edun suggested that amendments to the Act should involve either removing or refining the problematic sections to protect media professionals from arbitrary legal actions. He highlighted the need for defining cybercrimes such as cyberstalking and cyberbullying to apply only in cases where a group or community is targeted.
Furthermore, Edun raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to try offenses under the Act, questioning its constitutionality. He argued that the National Assembly lacks the authority to confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court for cybercrimes, suggesting that such laws should be under the purview of State Houses of Assembly.
In a similar vein, lawyer Ayokunmi Alabi stated that the enforcement of the Act against journalism and press freedom is a violation of fundamental human rights. He emphasized the need for balanced enforcement that upholds privacy rights and freedom of expression without targeting journalists.
Alabi added that misinterpretation of the Act by authorities undermines press freedom and limits the free flow of information, contrary to the Act’s objectives of enhancing cyber-security and privacy rights.
Although the Cybercrime Act is essential for addressing cyber threats, its misuse poses a threat to press freedom and democratic values. Alabi called for amendments to prevent the Act from infringing on the rights of journalists while maintaining its effectiveness in combating cybercrimes and safeguarding digital integrity.
Preserving a free and fair press is critical for ensuring governmental accountability and promoting transparency, which ultimately benefits society as a whole.