NIGERIA AND THE CYBERCRIME ACT

The cybercrime legislation should recognise the rights and freedoms of Nigerians, argues Iyobosa Uwugiaren

Outside our darkest moments of military rule, Mr. Kayode Egbetokun’s period as Inspector General of Police may hold a special record. His human rights record is poor and low in ranking – in the estimation of both local and international human rights organizations.

His recent validation of the arrest of journalists and deliberate attempt by the police under his watch – to criminalise journalism practice, under the guise of enforcing the Cyber Security Act, has compounded his problems. And it is a dangerous signal to Nigeria’s democratic space.

In the past few weeks there have been public uproars and concerns by both local/foreign journalists, and other stakeholders in the media sector on how journalists have been abducted and persecuted by the Nigeria Police Force, using Cybercrime Act as cover.

The Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), the professional body of media executives and editors, recently warned the Nigeria Police against press freedom violation. And called for a proper understanding and intention of the Cyber Security Act, declaring that the law was enacted as a legal framework for combating cybercrimes, and not for ‘’persecuting’’ journalists, who are performing their legitimate assignments and duties in a democracy.

But, in spite of the wide condemnations of the police’s action, Egbetokun does not see anything wrong with what some human rights activists had described as ‘’criminal action and lawlessness’’ of his men.

To be sure, reacting to the issue in a public outing recently, the Inspector General of Police, argued that his understanding of the whole matter was different. According to him, unless journalists were asking to be treated as a special breed different from how ‘’other criminals’’ are being treated; there shouldn’t be any criticism on cases of official abductions and humiliations of journalists. To the number one law enforcement officer in Nigeria, it was a standard practice and he couldn’t just understand the hullabaloo as everyone is equal before the law.

Coming from the Inspector-General of Police, the consequence of his reasoning and sadly so, is that his boys are now emboldened to commit more crimes against journalists and the media in the country.

Since the Cybercrime Act was enacted in 2015, several reports by the media rights groups indicated that at least 25 journalists had been arrested and prosecuted under the law. Some of the journalists who have been prosecuted under the Act include, Aiyelabegan Babatunde AbdulRazaq, Oluwatoyin Luqman Bolakale, Saint Mienpamo Onitsha and Matthew Perekebuna. Others are Daniel Ojukwu, Dayo Aiyetan, Nurudeen Akewushola and Segun Olatunji.

The police’s action against these victims were predicated on groundless petitions by some political and business elites. For many persons, it is a very sad narrative in the country’s democratic ecosystem, under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, whom many people believe labored so hard – along with other pro-democracy activists for the restoration of democracy in 1999.   

From records available, Nigeria is now leading some infamous countries using legislations to criminalize journalism and silence free speech. These laws often have vague or overly broad definitions of cybercrime, allowing authoritarian governments to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers for exposing corruption, bad behaviors, sensitive information or criticizing government for not acting in the best interest of the people.

For example, Egypt’s Cybercrime Law (2018) has been used to prosecute journalists for publishing false news or propaganda; Singapore’s Computer Misuse Act (1993) has been used to prosecute journalists and bloggers for unauthorized access or computer misuse; Malaysia’s Computer Crimes Act (1997) has been used to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers for unauthorized access or data theft, and Russia’s Cybercrime Law (2013) has been used to prosecute journalists and activists for “extremism” or “treason”.

However, the difference between Nigeria’s legislation and others, is the method of abduction/arrest of journalists, the long detention and inhuman treatment they are subjected to.

Check the contents of most mass media, especially the online, the Act is already having chilling effects on press freedom and investigative journalism, as journalists now employ self-censorship to avoid persecution by the Nigerian police. They now avoid reporting on sensitive topics or criticizing governments for fear of being prosecuted under cybercrime laws.

Particularly, online platforms are now being forced by security agencies to remove content deemed offensive or illegal, possibly limiting the capacity of journalists to publish critical reporting. Security agencies are now permitted to monitor journalists’ online activities, potentially chilling their ability to report on sensitive topics.

More so, going by the experience of Segun Olatunji, a journalist who was recently tortured to disclose his source of information, the Cybercrime laws is making it difficult for journalists to protect their sources, as governments may require them to reveal their identities. Journalists have been imprisoned under the cybercrime law for reporting on controversial issues or exposing government corruption.

In order words, cybercrime law in Nigeria has created a chilling effect on journalism and free press, limiting their ability to hold governments accountable and report on sensitive topics in line with their constitutional responsibility.

The impact of the cybercrime law on Nigeria’s democracy is also significant, as it can stifle free speech and press freedom, which are essential components of a healthy democracy. It will limit the ability of citizens to access information and hold governments accountable, and create a culture of fear, where journalists and citizens are self-censored to avoid prosecution.

In a country where general elections are held every four-year, the law will surely undermine the ability of democracy to promote transparency and accountability, and empower governments to silence political opponents and dissenting voices. There is already huge fear in land that the federal government is testing the law – with purpose of using it to silent oppositions towards 2027 general elections. And from intent and purposes, the Act will definitely compromise the integrity of elections by allowing governments to suppress information and manipulate public opinion, erode trust in institutions and the media, leading to democratic disenchantment.

By criminalizing journalism and online expression, as the Nigeria police are currently doing, cybercrime law can ultimately weaken democratic foundations and pave the way for authoritarianism.

With over 133 countries having cybercrime legislation, the main features of UK Act, the first country in the world to introduce the law, require minimum-security standards for consumer smart devices – manufacturers of consumer smart devices are required to implement minimum-security standards; default passwords must be changed, and manufacturers must publish contact details for security issues; retailers must be transparent about security updates and support, and the National Crime Agency (NCA) must work to improve the UK’s resilience to cyber-attacks.

In the law, the NCA encourages individuals to make informed choices in their use of technology; and the Cybercrime legislation aims to secure computer material against unauthorized access and to tackle cyber-crime threats. There is nowhere in section of the Act that targets journalists or the media.

Contrary to the misuse of the law by the Nigeria police, the spirit and intention of cybercrime legislation is to protect society from the harm caused by cybercrime, promote cybersecurity, and ensure the integrity of digital technologies.

The intention of the law by those who initiated it, is to prevent and combat cybercrime, such as hacking, identity theft, and online fraud; protect security in the digital environment; promote international cooperation and information sharing in combating cybercrime; establish a legal framework for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing cybercrime offenses. And more importantly, balance individual rights with the need to investigate and prosecute cybercrime meritoriously.

While the Nigeria police may be working very hard to undermine democracy and create bad image for President Tinubu-led government, it is necessary and urgent for all stakeholders in the democratic space: the media, judiciary, legislature, civil society groups and others to ensure that cybercrime legislation aligns with human rights and democratic values. Its implementation must prioritize the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Uwugiaren, is Editor Nation’s Capital, THISDAY and General Secretary, Nigerian Guild of Editors