Cybercrime Act poses threat to free press and democracy, says legal expert

This Video Is Trending Right Now →

Keypoints

• Legal practitioner Oluwatobi Fatoki warns that the Cybercrimes Act is being used to suppress journalists and the masses.
• Despite 2024 amendments, Section 24 of the Act remains a tool for targeting media practitioners over subjective definitions of “falsehood.”
• Journalists are constitutionally mandated under Section 22 to hold the government accountable, yet face restrictive legal hurdles.
• High-profile cases involving Omoyele Sowore, Chioma Okoli, and others highlight the ongoing tension between cybercrime laws and free speech.
• Expert advice emphasizes that “truth” and “due process” remain the primary defenses for trained journalists against defamation charges.

Main Story

The legal framework intended to protect Nigeria’s digital space is increasingly being viewed as a weapon against the Fourth Estate. Mr. Oluwatobi Fatoki, a former spokesperson for the NBA Ibadan Branch, raised concerns on Wednesday that the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015 is being misapplied to silence investigative reporting.

Speaking in Ibadan, Fatoki noted that while the act was amended in 2024, it continues to “raise eyebrows” due to its use in detaining journal ists who share information critical of state actors.

At the heart of the controversy is Section 24 of the Act, which criminalizes the transmission of messages known to be false. Fatoki argued that the subjectivity of “knowledge of falsehood” allows for the targeting of media professionals even when they follow standard sourcing protocols.

He pointed to the 16-count cyberbullying charge against Omoyele Sowore—recently struck out after police failed to appear—as a prime example of how the law can be used for administrative harassment rather than legitimate justice.

The Issues

The primary challenge is the interpretive-subjectivity gap; the phrasing of Section 24 allows law enforcement to bypass traditional libel laws and move straight to criminal prosecution. Authorities must solve the problem of digital-misinformation balancing, as the surge of “untrained persons” in the digital media space makes it harder for the state to distinguish between malicious fake news and legitimate, though critical, journalism. Furthermore, there is a democratic-erosion risk; if journalists fear arrest for quoting sources that later prove inaccurate, the constitutional mandate to ensure government accountability becomes impossible to fulfill. To succeed, the judiciary must set clear precedents that protect journalists who follow due process, ensuring that the Cybercrime Act does not become a de facto “Anti-Criticism” law.

What’s Being Said

• “The phrase, ‘that he knows to be false’, is subjective, yet journalists are still targeted for sharing vital information,” stated Oluwatobi Fatoki.
• Fatoki emphasized that under Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution, “journalists are tasked with ensuring government accountability.”
• Legal critics have highlighted the case of Chioma Okoli, arrested for a Facebook review, as evidence of the law’s reach into consumer speech.
• “A trained journalist knows truth is a defence to defamation… once due process was followed,” Fatoki added, urging practitioners to remain “vibrant and unintimidated.”

What’s Next

• Civil society groups are expected to increase pressure for a more comprehensive judicial review of Section 24 to prevent its use in political intimidation.
• The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) may issue new guidelines for pro-bono legal defense specifically for journalists targeted under the Cybercrimes Act.
• Media training workshops are likely to prioritize digital safety and verification to help reporters strengthen their “due process” defense.
• Legislative advocates are pushing for a 2026 amendment that clearly distinguishes between commercial cyber-fraud and public-interest reporting.

Bottom Line

While the Cybercrime Act serves a necessary function in the digital age, its current application suggests a conflict with constitutional freedoms. As the legal community and media practitioners push back, the focus remains on ensuring that the “prevention” of cybercrime does not result in the “prohibition” of the truth.