News
Cybercrimes Act Will Be Amended, Says FG
The Federal Government has stated that the Federal Ministry of Justice is committed to pursuing the amendment of the Cybercrimes Act, which many lawyers, journalists and activists have considered repressive, unconstitutional and illegal.
This was stated yesterday by Mr Terlumun George Tyendezwa, Head, Cybercrimes Prosecution Unit, Federal Ministry of Justice, at a Media Interactive Session on the ‘Constitutionality and Legality of the Cybercrimes Act in Nigeria’, organized by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in collaboration with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USA.
At the Media Interactive Session held in Ikeja, Lagos, Mr. Tyendezwa said: “The Cybercrimes Act is not perfect. One of the reasons why I am here is that I have an open door; we want to engage on the Act. We are interested in engaging with all stakeholders in the Justice sector. Whatever is not useful, we can seek amendment on this. From the point of passage, we as the operators knew that there were things that need to change. We are presently collating memoranda on amendment of the Act. But amendment takes time and cost money.”
He also said: “We know the importance of law as a social driver. The office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice continues to place high value on entrenched fundamental human rights and engaging with all stakeholders on the Cybercrimes Act is one of our approaches.”
Earlier at the meeting, a group of lawyers, journalists, activists and other stakeholders unanimously declared the Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act as “repressive, oppressive and unconstitutional. The Act should immediately be repealed or dropped, as many of its provisions blatantly offend the rights to freedom of expression, association and media freedom.”
The group also called on the next Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to “prioritise challenging in court the constitutionality and legality of the Cybercrime Act, which is antithetical to respect for freedom of expression including online and the government’s commitment to fight grand corruption.”
Others included: Mr. Terlumun George, Federal Ministry of Justice, Cybercrimes Act, Nurudeen Ogbara former Chairman Nigerian Bar Association, Ikorodu, Folake Falana, Malachy Ugwummadu, president, Committee For the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) and representatives of BudgIT, CODE, Heda Resources, Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE), Cleen Foundation, Federal Civil Service Pension, Community Life Project, journalists, lawyers, activists and other stakeholders.
Earlier, Mr Tayo Oyetibo, SAN in his paper titled: The Constitutionality and Legality of the Cybercrimes Act in Nigeria stated: “the supremacy of the constitution over every other law is an immutable principle of Nigerian constitutional law derived from the provisions of section 1(3) of the constitution itself. In creating criminal offences, section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act uses words that are entirely subjective in meaning to describe the actus Reus elements of the offences, despite the fact that the actus reus of an offence ought to be capable of objective and not subjective definition.”
According to him, “Worse still, the Cybercrimes Act makes no effort to give certainty to the meanings of any of the words used in its section 24(1) by defining them anywhere in the Act, which means that only judicial definitions can be given to those words in any case where a person is charged with an offence under section 24(1) of the Act.”
The paper read in part: “In the context of the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens to freedom of speech under the Nigerian constitution, there is the pressing question of whether the Cybercrimes Act is fit for the purpose pursuant to which it was enacted, particularly in view of the provisions of its section 24(1)?”
“It would appear that the answer to this poser is in the negative, which means that it is imperative for deliberate steps to be taken to remedy the situation, particularly against the backdrop of widespread complaints against the deliberate misuse and abuse of the Cybercrimes Act against certain categories of persons in Nigeria.”
“In this regard, this is not a matter in which long winding technical recommendations are necessary. The simple recommendation is that section 24(1) be entirely deleted from the Cybercrimes Act, due to its apparent irreconcilability with the provisions of section 36(12) and 39(1) of the constitution.”
“From a practical standpoint, it means that a person charged with an offence under section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act will involuntarily be playing the lottery of judicial interpretation of the words and phrases used in that section. This is because virtually all of the words used in section 24(1) of the Act are of such personal character that, any attempt to define them is entirely subject to the whims and caprices of two different sets of people- complainants and judges.”
“It is impossible for a person to be convicted of an offence under section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act without conjecture or inference by the court as to the meanings of the words used in that section. Worse still, such conjecture or inference can only be imputed by the court at the point of delivering judgment in the matter, at which point the accused person will not have had the opportunity to be heard by the court as to the court’s interpretation of the meanings of those words and phrases.”
“Apart from the above, every person is constitutionally guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference under section 39(1) of the constitution. A scenario in which a person is bound by section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act to second-guess the exercise of his right to freedom of expression under section 39(1) of the constitution is certainly not one contemplated by the constitution in any way.”
“Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are part of democratic rights of every citizen; our legislature must guard these rights jealously as they are part of the foundation upon which the government itself rests.”
“It is clear that section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act portends great danger for every person in Nigeria. This is by reason of the fact that at the time of issuing any communication in exercise of the right to freedom of expression, it is impossible for a person to determine whether or not an offence is being committed under the Cybercrimes Act. Surely, this is the exact scenario that the framers of the constitution sought to legislate against by the inclusion of the express provisions that are sections 36(12) and 39(1) of the constitution.”
“24(1) is a tool that readily lends itself to abuse and misuse by those in authority against freedom of expression in Nigeria. This is particularly because the Cybercrimes Act contains no safeguards whatsoever to the enforcement of section 24, which carries with it severe criminal sanctions.”
“The Cybercrimes Act is already in desperate need of a significant overhaul to ensure that it does not unwittingly and unconstitutionally place citizens at the unfortunate risk of the luck of a criminal draw.”
A bill to amend the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives.
The bill, which mandates compulsory counselling and training for individuals convicted of corruption-related offences, was sponsored by Kayode Akiolu (APC-Lagos) during plenary on Wednesday.
Leading the debate, Mr Akiolu explained that the bill sought to amend Section 67 of the principal act, introducing new provisions that were not part of the original section.
“These additional provisions, found in subsections 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment bill, require judges and magistrates to not only impose imprisonment and/or fines on those convicted of corruption but also mandate a minimum four-week anti-corruption counselling and training.
“The counselling and training will be designed and delivered by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN) and aims to address the psychological factors related to corrupt behaviour,” Mr Akiolu said.
Mr Akiolu emphasised that the training would help reform convicts by addressing their corrupt tendencies and could even transform them into advocates for anti-corruption efforts.
He added that this approach aligned with the reformative aspect of the criminal justice system, which focused on punishment and rehabilitation.
“As per subsection 4, the bill allows magistrates and judges to order convicts to cover the cost of their counselling and training, preventing additional financial burdens on the government,” the lawmaker noted.
Mr Akiolu further argued that if the bill is passed into law, it would strengthen the country’s fight against corruption.
Given the widespread negative impact of corruption, he urged the House to support the bill for the country’s benefit.
Following the debate, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas referred the bill to the relevant committee for further legislative consideration.
The Judiciary and the Media are key pillars of democracy, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has said.
Kekere-Ekun made this statement in her address at the 2024 National Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC).
The CJN was represented by Mr Abdulaziz Olumo, the Secretary of the National Judicial Institute (NJI).
“ The judiciary and the media occupy unique and complementary roles in any democratic society.
“ The judiciary serves as the guardian of justice, equity, and the rule of law, the media acts as the conscience of society, disseminating information, shaping public opinion, and ensuring accountability.
“ Together, these institutions provide checks and balances that strengthen the fabric of democracy,” she said.
Quoting Felix Frankfurter, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she said: free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the other; both are indispensable to a free society.”
The CJN said this dynamic interdependence between the judiciary and the media presents opportunities and challenges alike.
“ The media is entrusted with the responsibility of informing the public about judicial activities, the judiciary relies on accurate and ethical reportage to enhance public confidence in its work.
“ However, the inherent power of the media to influence public opinion requires careful management, especially when its focus turns to judicial proceedings.
“ The question posed by Robert J.Cordy, a former Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, is pertinent here: “What happens when the free press turns its sights on the courts-scrutinizing, sensationalizing, and exposing the frailties of the judiciary while questioning its ethical standards and performance?”
“The media’s capacity to shape narratives and perceptions is undeniable” she said.
Quoting Jim Morrison , she said “Whoever controls the media controls the mind.”
According to her, this underscores the immense responsibility placed on journalists to report truthfully, fairly, and objectively.
“ Unfortunately, the commercialisation of news and external influences have led to the rise of sensationalism-a practice that distorts facts, erodes trust, and undermines the very essence of journalism.
“ Sensationalised headlines, such as the infamous 2016 headline “We raided the houses of ‘corrupt, unholy’ judges, says DSS,” can paint a skewed picture of the judiciary and its officers. Such reporting, often devoid of context, compromises the integrity of the justice system and misleads the public.
“ Closely tied to this is the issue of “trial by media,” where premature and often biased media narratives prejudge cases and infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals” she said.
She added that as Mahatma Gandhi rightly observed, “The sole aim of journalism should be service.” It is imperative for media practitioners to remain steadfast in their commitment to truth and objectivity.
To this end, she advised, the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents to take proactive steps to regulate the activities of its members.
“ This is not merely about enforcing rules but about fostering professionalism and safeguarding the credibility of the media.
“ The judiciary and the media must work as partners in progress.
“ To bridge the gap between these institutions, there is a pressing need for constructive engagement and mutual understanding.
“ Courts can provide the media with guidelines on judicial processes, courtroom decorum, and the nuances of court proceedings.
She noted that globally, courts have adopted initiatives to support the media’s role in reporting judicial matters.
For instance, she said the Supreme Court of Dakota’s media guide outlines protocols for courtroom reporting, while the UK ‘s Media Guidance document provides clarity on access and etiquette for journalists.
“ These examples demonstrate how structured collaboration can enhance the quality of judicial reportage.
“ In Nigeria, we can take a cue from these models by developing a comprehensive media guide tailored to our judicial landscape.
“ This initiative, which would involve inputs from NAJUC and judicial stakeholders, would not only enhance media access to courtrooms but also ensure that judicial activities are accurately and responsibly reported” she said.
She advocated that judiciary correspondents must make deliberate efforts to familiarise themselves with the rules and procedures of the courts.
She added that understanding these frameworks will enable journalists to navigate the complexities of judicial proceedings effectively and responsibly.
“ Training programs such as this conference play a crucial role in equipping judiciary correspondents with the knowledge and skills needed to report judicial matters accurately.
“ The theme of this year’s conference, “The Role of Courts in Enforcement of Judgments,” is both timely and significant, as it addresses an aspect of judicial work that is critical to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice.
“ I commend NAJUC for its commitment to promoting accountability and transparency through its engagements with the judiciary.
“ As I conclude, I must emphasize the importance of credible journalism in strengthening public trust in the judiciary” she said.
She urged judiciary correspondents to prioritise the pursuit of truth and objectivity, resist undue influences, and remain steadfast in their commitment to ethical standards.
She commended the leadership of NAJUC, under the chairmanship of Mr Kayode Lawal, for its efforts in promoting professionalism among judiciary correspondents.
The Senate has issued an arrest warrant for the Managing Director of Julius Berger Nigeria Plc, Dr Peer Lubasch, to appear before its Committee on Works.
The Tide’s source reports that the warrant was for Lubasch to explain the utilisation of funds appropriated for the reconstruction work on Calabar-Odukpani-Itu highway.
The warrant followed the adoption of a motion sponsored by Sen. Osita Ngwu (PDP- Enugu) and co-sponsored by Sen. Asuquo Ekpenyong (APC-Cross River) and Sen. Mpigi Barinada (PDP- Rivers) at plenary in Abuja, yesterday.
Ngwu, in the motion said, that the senate had mandated the committee on works to conduct investigation into the state of road infrastructure across the country.
He said that in furtherance to the investigative hearings, Julius Berger refused to honour invitations to provide details of its role in the Calabar-Odukpani-Itu highway project, in spite of receiving substantial public funds.
He said that this was worrisome, given the alarming discrepancies in performance among contractors on the project, with specific reference to Julius Berger for failing to meet delivery timelines.
Ngwu said it was the constitutional powers of the National Assembly under Sections 8 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to conduct investigations on any person or organisation responsible for administering public funds.
He said that the powers set out in section 6 of the legislative powers and privileges act empowered the Senate to issue warrants of arrest on persons in contempt of its proceedings.
The Tide source reports that the senate further ruled that President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, should sign the warrant, mandating the Julius Berger managing director to appear on a date to be communicated.
Akpabio said that the senate’s decision was in line with its constitutional powers under Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“This senate will not tolerate the continued disregard of its authority.
“The managing director of Julius Berger must appear before the relevant committee, failing which further actions will be taken as prescribed by the constitution.
“The point of order, which was supported by the majority of the senators, highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the legislature.
“The senate committee will submit its findings to the National Assembly after the MD’s appearance.
“If there is any further failure to comply, we shall take the necessary steps to ensure respect for the constitution and the rule of law,” Akpabio said.