Two years after the enactment of the amended version of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, individuals, including journalists, have been targeted, with many arrested and detained.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had, in February 2024, signed amendments to the Act, including revisions to Section 24 criminalising certain online comments.

Critical stakeholders and organisations in Nigeria had called for the repeal of some provisions of the law, especially Section 24, which they described as “contentious.”

Despite the amendment, several individuals have been controversially arrested, detained, or prosecuted under the Act.

The explanatory memorandum in the law claims that the Act provides an effective, unified and comprehensive legal, regulatory and institutional framework for the prohibition, prevention, detection, prosecution and punishment of cybercrimes in Nigeria.

It also states that the Act ensures the protection of critical national information infrastructure, and promotes cybersecurity and the protection of computer systems and networks, electronic communications, data and computer programmes, intellectual property and privacy rights.

Several documented reports revealed that at least six journalists were arrested and detained within six months after the amendment was signed by President Tinubu.

In the same vein, a report compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) showed that since its enactment in 2015, no fewer than 25 journalists had faced prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act up to 2024.

Old versus amended provision

The Act was amended in 2024 with a substantial adjustment to Section 24.

However, the police, the Department of State Service (DSS) and other security agencies have continued to clamp down on journalists and other dissenting voices promoting open society and free speech.

A review of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015, which the police have been using mostly for the arrest, detention, and in some cases, prosecution of journalists, is Section 24.

The section described cyberstalking as “sending a message by means of a computer system or network that is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character, or causes any such message or matter to be so sent or he knows 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 causes such a message to be sent.”

Civil society groups, including Media Rights Agenda and Paradigm Initiative, contested the section at the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal for violating freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution, but the suit was struck out. And since the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2019, the matter has not been heard.

The case was filed at the ECOWAS Court, which in its judgement dated 25 March 2022, “ordered Nigerian authorities to stop using Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 to prosecute anyone on the grounds of insulting or stalking public officials online.”

The regional court declared Section 24 as “arbitrary, vague and repressive” and ordered Nigerian authorities “to repeal it in conformity with the country’s human rights obligations.”

Following the ECOWAS court ruling and sustained criticisms from various quarters, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section were eventually amended in 2024 to refer to cyberstalking as “sending a message by means of a computer system or network that is pornographic, or he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life, or causing such a message to be sent.”

The amendment retains a fine of not more than N7,000,000 or three years’ imprisonment or both for anyone found guilty of violating the provision.

Despite amendment, Section 24, others remain

Legal experts and media rights organisations say though the rephrased paragraphs scaled down the ambiguity contained in the previous law, Section 24 and other provisions of the Act are still contentious.

The Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda (MRA), Edetaen Ojo, said although the amendment removed some of the vague provisions contained in the original 2015 Act, it failed to fully address concerns relating to vagueness, proportionality, freedom of expression and possible misuse against journalists, activists and government critics.

The amended Section 24(1) remained problematic because the phrase “breakdown of law and order” was itself vague and not defined by the Act, Ojo insisted.

“The amendment replaced the highly subjective concept of causing ‘annoyance’, ‘insult’, ‘hatred’, ‘ill will’ or ‘needless anxiety’ with the requirement that the false communication be intended to cause a ‘breakdown of law and order’ or pose a threat to life.

“But the Act does not define ‘breakdown of law and order’, leaving considerable room for interpretation by the police and prosecutors,” he said.

Ojo also said the amendment continued to criminalise certain forms of speech, noting that the provision was not limited to conventional cybercrime offences such as hacking, identity theft, fraud or attacks on computer systems.

“The amended provision is not simply a cybercrime provision dealing with hacking, identity theft, fraud or attacks on computer systems. It also regulates the content of communications,” he said.

He further raised concerns over the retention of the criminal penalty under the original Act, saying a violation could still attract imprisonment of up to three years.

“This matters because law-enforcement agencies have continued to use the Act against journalists and other critical voices even after the amendment,” he said.

A breakdown of Sections

Ojo also identified Sections 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 44 as other provisions of the amended Act that raise significant concerns.

He said Section 37, which requires financial institutions to verify customers’ identities using their National Identification Number (NIN) issued by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) and other valid documents before issuing ATM cards, credit or debit cards and related electronic devices, could have exclusionary and cybersecurity implications.

According to him, the provision raises concerns about people who do not have NINs, the possibility of identity theft and the cybersecurity risks associated with linking financial and identity databases.

He also questioned whether requiring NIN verification was necessary and proportionate for every transaction, warning about the consequences for financially vulnerable and digitally excluded Nigerians.

Ojo described Section 38 as “probably the most important contentious provision after Section 24.”

He said the section requires service providers to retain and protect specified traffic data and subscriber information for two years, while also allowing law-enforcement agencies to request the preservation and release of traffic, subscriber, non-content and content data.

“A two-year mandatory retention creates a very large repository of information about people’s communications and online activities, which also potentially creates a mass-surveillance risk,” he said.

Ojo maintained that the provision did not establish sufficiently detailed safeguards on necessity, proportionality, data minimisation, deletion and independent oversight.

On Section 39, he said the provision gives the government considerable surveillance powers by allowing a judge, based on information on oath and reasonable grounds to suspect that electronic communications are required for a criminal investigation or proceeding, to authorise the interception, collection or recording of content or traffic data.

He questioned the threshold for determining “reasonable grounds” and the level of judicial scrutiny required before interception orders are issued.

Ojo also raised concerns about possible fishing expeditions, the duration of interception, the handling of information later found to be irrelevant and protections for confidential communications involving journalists, lawyers and doctors.

“For journalists, this is particularly important because interception could expose confidential sources and unpublished journalistic material,” he said.

He said Section 40, which requires service providers to comply with the Act and disclose information requested by law-enforcement agencies or assist in inquiries and proceedings, could effectively turn private communications and technology companies into an extension of law enforcement.

Ojo said the provision needed clearer safeguards on when information could be demanded, the specificity of requests, protection of privileged or confidential information, transparency, remedies for unlawful requests and notification of affected users.

On Section 41, he said the 2024 amendment significantly expanded the functions of the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), including the establishment of sectoral Computer Emergency Response Teams and Security Operations Centres.

He particularly questioned the requirement for public and private organisations to integrate and route their internet and data traffic to sectoral Security Operations Centres.

According to him, the provision raises questions about the centralisation of internet traffic, privacy, what data could be inspected, protection of journalists’ sources and the level of independent oversight.

Ojo also criticised Section 44, which establishes a 0.5 per cent levy on the value of electronic transactions by businesses specified in the Second Schedule.

He said the levy imposed an additional financial burden on the economy and raised questions about its constitutional basis.

He also questioned the decision to place administration of the Cybersecurity Fund under the NSA, saying it raised questions about transparency and accountability.

According to him, there should be greater scrutiny of how the fund is spent, the level of legislative and public oversight over it, and whether its expenditure would be directly linked to cybersecurity purposes.

Also, speaking on the amended Cybercrimes Act, human rights lawyer Festus Ogun said the amendment to Section 24(1) still raised concerns and could be subject to vague or arbitrary interpretation.

Ogun said the amendment now limits cyberstalking to pornographic content or material a sender knows to be false and intended to cause a breakdown of law and order or pose a threat to life.

He, however, said the phrase “to cause a breakdown of law and order” could still be open to arbitrary or selective enforcement, particularly in cases involving investigative journalism or criticism of public officials.

“The amendment has taken away the very nebulous provisions. However, ‘to cause a breakdown of law and order’ used in that provision could permit arbitrary or selective enforcement, particularly where investigative journalism or criticism of public officials is involved,” he said.

According to him, the law does not clearly define what constitutes a breakdown of law and order, which could expose journalists and writers to prosecution.

“There is no definite provision for what would define a breakdown of law and order. Instances like the arrest of Daniel Ojukwu, a writer in FIJ who exposed the misappropriation of funds by a powerful politician, which was well within his fundamental rights contained in Sections 22 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution,” he said.

Ogun also faulted the amended Section 44 of the Act, which provides for a 0.5 per cent levy on the value of electronic transactions by specified businesses, including telecommunications companies, internet service providers, banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

He said the levy should be reviewed in view of the existing tax burden on individuals and businesses, as well as concerns over transparency and effectiveness in public expenditure.

Arrests, detentions

Despite the amendment to the Cybercrime Act, some persons have been arrested and remanded in prison custody.

For instance, Stanley Ugagbe, a freelance journalist, was remanded in prison in July 2026 over corruption reporting. Also, Tega Oghenedoro (Fejiro Oliver), an investigative journalist and publisher of Secret Reporters, was detained in September 2025 under the same Act.

One James Alefia was remanded in Kuje Prison in November 2025 following a cyberbullying petition over governance reports.

In August 2024 alone, at least 56 journalists were assaulted or arrested while covering demonstrations across the country. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Nigeria dropped 10 spots to 122nd in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index.

The Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) Press Attack Tracker indicated that there were 110 verified attacks in the year 2024.

In comparison to the previous year, 2023, the press attacks between the first and third quarter of 2024 surpassed those of the entire year in 2023.

For recording a video of a labour protest over economic hardship in Warri, Delta State, officers of the Nigerian Army, 3 Battalion, on February 23, 2024, brutalised Dele Fasan, the bureau chief of Galaxy Television.

Despite showing the soldiers his identity card, he was assaulted, hit with a gun, forced to delete images on his phone and handcuffed for an hour.

In March of the same year, shortly after the president signed the amended Act, the Editor of FirstNews Online, Segun Olatunji, was arrested and only regained freedom after spending 12 days in custody.

Gunmen in military uniform had allegedly invaded Olatunji’s residence at Iyana Odo, Abule Egba area of Lagos State on March 15, 2024, and whisked him away.

While the journalist’s family did not receive any communication from the military, the management of the media platform linked the incident to a story published by FirstNews, which Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to the President, claimed was defamatory against him.

In May, the Executive Director of the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR), Dayo Aiyetan, and a reporter, Nurudeen Akewushola, along with their lawyers, were detained by the Nigeria Police Force’s National Cybercrime Centre.

In the letter of invitation sent to them, the police stated that they were “investigating a case of cyberstalking and defamation of character,” a popular accusation the authorities have used to clamp down on journalists and activists.

Days before the detention of the ICIR team, Daniel Ojukwu, a journalist in the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), was arrested by the National Cybercrime Centre following an investigative piece regarding a government official.

In the same vein, Olurotimi Olawale, Editor of National Monitor, was arraigned in September 2024 over corruption reporting.

In February 2024, Kasarachi Aniagolu, a journalist at The Whistler Newspaper, Abuja, was arrested while covering a raid on Bureau de Change operators in the Wuse Zone 4 area of the country’s capital.

She was later released after about eight hours of detention at the Anti-Violence Crime Unit of the police headquarters in Abuja, her employer said.

Precious Eze Chukwunonso, Publisher of News Platform, was arrested, detained and prosecuted in multiple instances, including May and September 2024.

Also, a reporter with The Herald, Rowland Olonishuwa and Seun Odunlami, Publisher of Newsjaunts, were charged with cybercrimes in September 2024.

Checks also showed that Adisa-Jaji Azeez, Salihu Ayatullahi, Salihu Shola Taofeek, and Abdulrahman Taye Damilola, four journalists from Informant247 were arrested and charged with cyberstalking and defamation in February 2024.

Ibraheem Hamza Mohammed of FirstNews was prosecuted or detained under the cybercrime law, while Kobo Robson of The Waves newspaper also faced cybercrime allegations.

Aiyelabegan Babatunde AbdulRazaq and Oluwatoyin Luqman Bolakale were detained and charged with cyberstalking in September 2023 over critical reporting

On September 9, 2025, police in Ekiti State detained Sodeeq Atanda, a reporter with the privately owned Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), on allegations of cyberbullying, criminal defamation, conspiracy, blackmail, and malicious misrepresentation.

Atanda, as a law-abiding citizen, honoured an invitation from the police, following a complaint by a university vice-chancellor. He was reportedly detained for 11 hours and later freed after multiple calls for his release.

The Federal Government last year also charged Sahara Reporters publisher and activist, Omoyele Sowore, alongside X and Facebook owners over Sowore’s alleged ‘anti-Tinubu’ posts on the social media platforms.

Two of the counts were brought under the Cybercrimes Act while the other three charges of criminal defamation, causing public fear and disturbance were brought under the Criminal Code Act.

The suit dated 16th September, 2025, was lodged at the Federal High Court in Abuja after Sowore allegedly refused to delete certain posts allegedly critical of President Tinubu.

The charges were brought on behalf of the DSS and the Federal Government by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Ministry of Justice, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN.

Authorities weaponising law – Lawyers

Reacting to the use of the Cybercrime Act to clamp down on some Nigerians, lawyers, Civil Society Organisations and the Nigerian Guild of Editors called for a review.

A human rights lawyer, Barr. Mustafa Adedibu, explained that cracking down on Nigerians based on trumped-up charges would not help to rebuild the image of the country.

He said, “The Cybercrime law entails many things when it comes to protection of data privacy as well as national security infrastructures. The only contentious aspect is that of Section 24.

“It will do the country a lot of favours in terms of image rebuilding to amend Section 24 and give the journalists, CSOs, lawyers and other stakeholders demanding accountability to perform their civic duties.”

Also a senior lawyer, Gloria Ballason Esq, in a chat with Weekend Trust, explained that freedom of expression is the matrix and the indispensable right that guarantees nearly every other form of fundamental freedom.

Ballason, who argued that the 1999 Constitution as amended supersedes any Act, pointed out that Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right of the press to hold the government accountable.

She also noted that Section 39 protects freedom of speech and expression, arguing that every democratic or free society must protect expression rights including digital free expression because it protects truth, challenges power and provides the balance every just society needs.

“There has been an ugly trend in the weaponisation of the Cybercrimes Act. Despite reforms passed in 2024 to curb overreach, the police routinely rely on Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act to criminalise investigative journalism.

“Critical reporting on corruption or government misconduct is often framed as ‘cyberstalking, ‘cyberbullying,’ or ‘spreading false information.’

“The cumulative effect is that the violations create a chilling environment of forced self-censorship, as smaller media houses cannot afford the prolonged legal battles or the safety risks involved in pursuing sensitive stories.

“It is important to state that while cybercrime is essential, broad laws risk being weaponised to suppress dissenting voices and media freedom. Legislation meant to safeguard the digital space must therefore not be allowed or enabled to transform into an instrument of repression,” Ballason said.

Nigerians need proper enlightenment on Cybercrime law – Police

Reacting to allegations that police use the law indiscriminately, the police high command explained that Nigerians need to be properly enlightened when it comes to the law.

In an interview, the spokesman of the Force, Anietie Iniedu, while arguing that the laws were neither written by the police nor the DSS, said the Nigerian people wrote the laws through their representatives in the chambers.

“These cybercrime laws were not written by the police or the DSS, they were actually written by the people because it is their representatives that wrote it. I think it is important the representatives educate them enough because it appears everybody is blaming the police for enforcing it which is the challenge,” he said.

Iniedu, a Chief Superintendent of Police, maintained that Nigerians should not blame the police or any law enforcement agencies for enforcing it, adding that many citizens do not even know that such laws exist because they are used to old laws.

“Sincerely speaking, I won’t say it is being used indiscriminately. The issue is that when there are new laws, for a long time, Nigerians have been acting on old laws, very old laws, and when there are new laws like this, atimes a lot of people don’t even know what it means.

“One of the things we’re trying to do is to have sessions, so that I can teach members of the public these laws because an average Nigerian does not read.

“We have had instances. Look at the parade I did today (Thursday), how would someone explain it that someone just saw something, carried and pasted it (Referring to the false information about OPAY shutdown in Nigeria).

“Before now, most of these crimes were committed either on television or in public places and the DSS or police would go and make an arrest. But now, most of these crimes, issues of infringement, incitement are perpetrated online rather than offline.

“So, since they are perpetrated online, cybercrime laws came and arranged it properly. It is not as if we’re using it to hunt people, but the truth of the matter is that Nigerians need more enlightenment. Even some police officers need to know about it.

“A lot of Nigerians don’t even know that there is even a Cybercrime Act. Some people don’t even know that there is something called cyberstalking and sextortion. We arrested a guy recently. He videoed the naked picture of a lady and started asking her for money.

“Normally, if there was no cybercrime law, he would have used blackmail. The penalty of blackmail is not much but the penalty of cyberstalking is plenty. So, security agencies are only using it because it has more punishment, it is not as if it is being used indiscriminately.”

Efforts to get official reactions from the DSS proved abortive as calls to the official number of the service depicted “not reachable” for several days. An email sent was yet to be responded to as at when filing this report.

FG, states urged to respect press freedom

In an interview with our correspondent, the leadership of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) maintained that its earlier position regarding the misuse of the Cybercrime law remains unchanged.

The General Secretary of the Guild, Onuoha Ukeh, flayed what he called the continued cases of harassment, intimidation and misuse of laws and judicial processes in Nigeria to stifle the peaceful activities of journalists, activists, and CSOs and curtail the exercise of free expression across the country.

Ukeh argued that the provisions of Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act are inconsistent with the provisions of section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Nigeria is a party.

He said, “For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2024 are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.

“We are concerned that Nigerian authorities at all levels and other actors continue to use repressive laws and misuse the judicial processes to normalise repression of the rights of journalists, human rights defenders, activists, opposition politicians, artistes and other Nigerians.

“We are also concerned about the persistence of threats to journalists’ safety, and the potential chilling effect of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and harassment, including by security agencies and politicians.

“Journalists, human rights defenders and activists play an indispensable role in documenting, reporting on human rights violations and deepening democracy.

Trying to suppress them has far-reaching negative consequences, including the erosion of democracy, increased corruption, the spread of misinformation, and human rights violations. No nation will progress under such conditions.

“Immunity for those who threaten, intimidate and harass journalists, human rights defenders and activists contributes to the hostile environment for these defenders of constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights in Nigeria”, he said.

The Guild called on President Tinubu, state governors, lawmakers and other critical stakeholders in the country to order the withdrawal of various lawsuits instituted against journalists, activists, and CSOs.

It urged the National Assembly to promptly and comprehensively review the Cybercrimes Act and other restrictive legislation, and revise them as appropriate to bring them into line with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations and commitments regarding human rights and media freedom.

The NGE scribe stated, “We are, once again, calling on the federal government led by President Tinubu, Nigeria’s state governors, lawmakers and other actors to immediately stop intimidation and harassment of journalists, activists, and civil society organizations (CSOs) and people with alternative viewpoints.

“We, therefore, call on the Nigerian authorities to immediately release all journalists, activists, and other Nigerians detained solely for the peaceful exercise of their human rights and withdraw charges against them.”

The National President of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Comrade Alhassan Yahya, urged the National Assembly to expedite action on the review of the Cybercrime Act, particularly Section 24, which he said had been used to harass and intimidate journalists.

Yahya said the proposed amendment to the Act should be given urgent legislative attention to prevent its provisions from being used to undermine journalism and deny journalists their constitutional rights.

Speaking on Friday, the NUJ president said the union had consistently opposed the use of Section 24 against journalists and called on the National Assembly to review the provision.

“We strongly oppose and we condemn the use of such acts in trying to harass, chain, or even intimidate journalists.

We have serious concerns and we also call on the National Assembly to look at the sections that are being used against us, most especially that of Section 24. We have been calling all the time that the National Assembly should also look at that section and review it. We gave our input during the first reading and we hope and pray that this National Assembly will be able to do the next step. As you all know, the bill was read for the first time,” he said.

He also appealed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and other Nigerians to support the amendment, arguing that journalists should be able to carry out their constitutional responsibility without fear.

According to him, while regulation of the cyber space is necessary, such laws should not undermine the rights of journalists to practise their profession and hold government accountable.

A Deputy Director at Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Kolawole Oluwadare, also maintained the same position.

He wondered why the Cybercrime Act and SLAPP are being used to intimidate and harass journalists, activists and CSOs.

“The use of these repressive laws and SLAPP erodes democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Nigeria. The use of repressive laws and SLAPP to crack down on peaceful dissent is entirely inconsistent with the Nigerian 1999 Constitution [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations.

“Security agencies, acting for state and non-state actors, have weaponised the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024, using provisions of Section 24 on “cyberstalking” to intimidate and harass journalists, activists, and civil society organizations (CSOs) who are exercising their human rights to press freedom and freedom of expression.

“The restrictions on civic space, human rights violations and suppression of the press in recent times take various forms, ranging from extrajudicial to unlawful arrest, detentions, malicious prosecutions and wrongful use of both legislation and law enforcement,” he said.

Oluwadare, however, called on the international community to hold Nigerian authorities to account for violations of human rights in the country.

“We urge the international community to hold Nigerian authorities to account for violations of human rights in the country, including by calling on the authorities at both the Federal and state levels to immediately and unconditionally release anyone detained solely for peacefully exercising their fundamental rights,” he added.

Also speaking on the issue, the the National Coordinator, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), Emmanuel Onwubiko, said the attention of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi had been drawn to the law in order to work with the CSOs and amend it with immediate alacrity.

“We, HURIWA have actually approached the Federal Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), requesting that the government work with civil society organisations and leaderships of the media institutions in Nigeria to fashion out immediate and comprehensive amendments to the toxic, obnoxious and undemocratic provisions smuggled into the Cybercrime Prohibition Act.

“These were basically inserted by some persons and their rich friends in the private sector to inhibit and stop the investigation of perceived or alleged domestic related offences they are said to have committed or are committing,” he said.

Onwubiko, a former National Commissioner at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Nigeria, argued that most Nigerian elites in both the political establishment and the private sector are afraid of accountability.

According to him, they believe that their wealth should confer immunity from being questioned by the investigative media.

He added, “Unfortunately, the drafters of the Cybercrime Prohibition Act left the most critical crimes that the law should deal with such as wire frauds and other malfeasance and delved into the arena of blocking any sort of investigation into their private or public lives especially when such alleged offences bother on infidelity or even suspected crimes of heist of public funds.

“The police are the main agents used by these elites to stop journalists from doing their lawful work as prescribed by section 22 of the 1999 constitution in which the media is made the conscience of the nation.

“There is the critical, immediate, and urgent necessity to look at all these obnoxious provisions of that aforementioned law, to insulate and protect media practitioners from police and DSS abuses of their professional duties to the nation and to the Constitution.

“The use of the Cybercrime Prohibition Act to witch-hunt journalists investigating alleged crimes of the political and social elites in Nigeria, must be halted so as to deepen accountability and widen the scope of investigative journalism which incorporates the principles of accountability and public transparency which are the most fundamental anchors of constitutional democracy”, he said.