Police vs Ofoegbu: Court Strikes out Defamation Count over Lack of Jurisdiction, Proceeds with Cyber Stalking

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A Federal High Court in Lagos has held that defamation is not one of the items over which jurisdiction is conferred on the court by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as well as the Rules of the Federal High Court.

Justice Akintayo Aluko made the declaration while delivering ruling in a preliminary objection filed by one Chizorom Ofoegbu in his trial for alleged conspiracy, cyber stalking, and defamation.

But the court assumed jurisdiction on another count, which bordered on cybercrime based on the amendment of the Cybercrime Act, 2024.

The police had last year arraigned Ofoegbu before the court for allegedly using his social media handle to cause hate and damage the reputation of one Evangelist Ebuka Obi.

However, Ofoegbu, through his lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, filed a preliminary objection to the charge, claiming, among others, that the main offence of the trial was unknown to law.

Delivering ruling in the preliminary objection last July, Aluko dismissed two of the counts for being incompetent and ordered the defendant to stand trial on the remaining count.

In the first count, which bordered on conspiracy, the court agreed with the defendant that the count of conspiracy was illegal because the defendant could not conspire against himself.

Besides, Aluko held that a person could not be charged with conspiracy to commit an offence, which was not known to the law.

On the third count, which bordered on defamation, the court held that by the community reading of Section 251 (1) (S), (3) of the CFRN and Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act, it had no jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation.

The court, however, ruled that the offence of using social media handle to make online publication with the intention to cause hatred and damage the reputation of any person was an offence under the Cybercrime Act of 2024.

As such, the court held that it had jurisdiction to try the offence of cyberstalking vide online publication against the person of the evangelist, which put him to fear of death under sections 24 (2) (c) (i) (ii) and (3) of the Act as amended.

The section provides for the offence of cyberstalking where a person knowingly or intentionally sends a message by means of computer systems or network that is pornography or which he knows to be false for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life or causing such message to be sent and where a person knowingly or intentionally transmits or causes the transmission of any  communication through a computer system or network to bully, threaten  or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person.

The court held, “Coming from the forgoing, the preliminary objection is upheld over count one and three, while same is overruled on count two of the amended charge.

“Accordingly, count one and three are out on grounds of incompetence while count two is sustained.”

It was the court’s position that the alleged offence of cyber stalking in count two was committed in February 2024, the same time the Cybercrime Act was amended.