Editorial
One can argue that the intent of the promoters of cybercrime laws enactment in Nigeria could not have construed it to be misused and turned into an instrument of state oppression against the weak. Unfortunately, today,
laws meant to protect citizens from digital harm have become tools of harm themselves. Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act, passed in 2015 and amended in 2024, was designed to tackle fraud, hacking, and online harassment.
Ironically, in practice, sections of the law are now being used to silence critics, intimidate journalists, and settle political scores. When a law designed for cybersecurity becomes a weapon against free expression, the public loses trust in both the internet and the state.
The most abused provision is Section 24, which criminalizes messages deemed “offensive,” “false,” or “likely to cause annoyance.” The language is vague. What counts as offensive depends on who reads it. A tweet calling a governor corrupt can be framed as offensive by the governor’s lawyers, even if the claim is based on a public audit report. Vagueness gives prosecutors room to target speech that would be protected under Section 39 of the Constitution.
In the face of various subjective interpretations of the Cybercrimes Act, journalists have borne the brunt most. In the last 18 months, reporters who published stories on contract awards, security breaches, and political disputes have been arrested under the Act. Police often detain them, seize devices, and hold them beyond the 48-hour limit before charging them. By the time the case reaches court, the story has been killed, the source intimidated, and the chilling effect achieved. The law becomes a form of pre-trial punishment.
Business owners and activists are also caught up. A customer who posts a negative review of a bank’s service, a student who mocks a lecturer on X, and a civil society group that shares a leaked memo have all faced petitions under the Act. The complainants are usually powerful individuals or institutions with the resources to file petitions and keep cases moving. For ordinary Nigerians, defending against a cybercrime charge means legal fees, lost work, and reputational damage, even if they are acquitted.
The process itself is the punishment. Cybercrime cases are often filed in Abuja or Lagos regardless of where the alleged offence occurred. Defendants must travel, hire counsel, and appear repeatedly for adjournments. Police use the threat of remand to extract apologies and retractions. The result is self-censorship. Writers delete posts, bloggers avoid certain topics, and citizens think twice before commenting on public officials.
This abuse undermines the legitimate purpose of the law. Nigeria loses over ₦200 billion annually to cyber fraud, according to reports. Online scams, identity theft, and phishing attacks affect small businesses and ordinary users daily. When law enforcement spends time prosecuting tweets, resources are diverted from investigating real cybercrime networks. Criminals benefit while critics are silenced.
To minimise this abuse of the Cybercrimes Act, the courts have a role to play. In several cases, judges have dismissed charges under Section 24 for being unconstitutional or lacking evidence. But dismissal comes late. Lower courts must be willing to strike out frivolous petitions at the first hearing and award costs against complainants who use the law maliciously. Without judicial pushback, the Act becomes a fast track for harassment.
The National Assembly also bears responsibility. The 2024 amendments improved some provisions but left Section 24 intact. Lawmakers should amend the section to align it with international standards on free expression. Specificity matters: replace “annoyance” with a narrow definition of incitement to violence or targeted harassment. Remove criminal penalties for defamation and leave it to civil courts. No democracy functions when insult becomes a crime.
Law enforcement needs retraining. Police units handling cybercrime must distinguish between cyberattacks and criticism. The Nigeria Police Force’s Cybercrime Centre should publish guidelines on when a petition meets the threshold for investigation. Complaints that target speech about public officials or public interest issues should be screened out before arrest. Accountability starts with gatekeeping at the intake stage.
Nigeria Horn is of the view that the citizens must defend the space. When journalists and activists are arrested, public pressure matters. Media outlets, the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA), and civil society groups have been known to secure bail and acquittals of accused persons by showing up in court and publicizing cases. Silence allows abuse to continue.
The internet is one of the few spaces where ordinary Nigerians can hold power accountable without money or connections. Losing that space means losing a check on government.
Nigeria needs a cybercrimes law that protects data, stops fraud, and respects speech and not otherwise. The current application fails that test. Reform is not anti-security. It is pro-constitution. If the National Assembly and the judiciary act now, the law can return to its purpose. If they do not, the public will conclude that the Cybercrimes Act exists to protect the powerful from criticism, not citizens from crime.
