Abuja over “the frequent and repressive application of the Cybercrime Act
to harass, intimidate, arbitrarily arrest, detain, and unfairly prosecute
anyone found publishing views or facts perceived to be critical of the
government at the federal and state levels and government officials.”
In the suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19 filed last week at the ECOWAS Court,
SERAP is arguing that: “The Federal Government and several state
governments and their agents have trampled on the rights to freedom of
expression and information of bloggers, journalists, activists, and social
media users through the repressive use and implementation of the vaguely
worded provisions of the Cybercrime Act.”
The suit filed on SERAP’s behalf by its Solicitor Femi Falana, SAN states:
“The fundamental question for the court is whether the federal and state
governments, by using and applying the Cybercrime Act and other similar
laws on cyberstalking and sedition to prosecute journalists, bloggers and
activists over perceived critical views, violate the rights to freedom of
expression and access to information. SERAP submits that, under
international freedom of expression jurisprudence, the answer is YES.”
The suit read in part: “The idea of a democracy is that the people are
encouraged to express their criticisms, even their wrong-headed
criticisms, of elected government officials, in the expectation that this
process will improve the process of government. In circumstances of public
debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public
institutions, the value placed by legal principles and jurisprudence upon
uninhibited expression is particularly high.”
“The systematic and persistent use of the Cybercrime Act and other similar
laws on alleged cyberstalking to prosecute and imprison journalists,
bloggers and activists for their criticism of public officials runs afoul
of freedom of expression principles, namely: that criminal prosecutions
against journalists and bloggers is never an appropriate remedy for
alleged defamation of government officials, and that news reporting about
government officials are matters of public interest, which should be
accorded heightened protection.”
“Sanctions for defamation should not be so large as to exert a chilling
effect on freedom of opinion, expression and media freedom; penal
sanctions, in particular imprisonment, should never be applied. This
implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues
without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. The public
also has a corresponding right to receive output.”
“Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act which provides for the offence of
cyberstalking has been severally used and applied by the Defendant and its
agents and several state governments across the country in molesting,
intimidating, harassing and witch-hunting anyone found publishing views or
facts deemed critical of government and/or government officials.”
“The vaguely worded offence of cyberstalking as stated in the Cybercrime
Act is accorded a wide interpretation that extends to factual and true
reports by activists, journalists, social media users and bloggers,
thereby leaving a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression
and information and media freedom and on citizens’ participation in the
fight against corruption.”
“The abusive and repressive use of the vaguely worded provisions of the
Cybercrime Act to stifle and muzzle perceived critics, journalists,
bloggers and other media practitioners is an affront and it is dangerous
to the rule of law and protection of the human rights of people.”
“Stories published online have been deemed ‘offensive’, ‘obstructive’,
‘insulting’ or ‘annoying’ with actionable consequence under section 24 of
the Act even when the stories are true, correct and factual. Some stories
published through traditional media outlets (print and electronic) that
were never sanctioned by the government have been sanctioned by the same
government upon being republished through online platforms.”
“SERAP chronologically highlights in this suit some of the high-profile
cases of harassment, intimidation, arrest, unlawful detention, prosecution
and imprisonment of journalists, bloggers, and activists for alleged
cyberstalking.”
SERAP is seeking the following reliefs:
1.A DECLARATION that the actions of the Defendants and its agents and
several states of Nigeria in arbitrarily enforcing the provisions of the
Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 particularly its
section 24 to harass, intimidate, arrest, detain, prosecute and imprison
journalists, bloggers, and social media users, violate the rights to
freedom of expression, information, opinion and privacy and media freedom,
guaranteed under Articles 6,8,9 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights; Articles 7,9,17 and 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party
2. A DECLARATION that the provisions of the Cybercrime (Prohibition
Prevention, etc) Act 2015 are entirely inconsistent and incompatible with
international human rights standards and infringe on the rights to the
freedom of expression, information and opinion guaranteed under the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
3. A DECLARATION that the continuing use and application by the Defendant
and its agents and several states in Nigeria of the Cybercrime is illegal
and unlawful, as it amounts to breaches of obligations to respect,
protect, promote and fulfil the rights to freedom of expression and
information and media freedom
4. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately repeal and/or amend the
Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 in line with Nigerian
obligations under international human rights law
5. AN ORDER directing the Defendant and/or its agents and several states
of Nigeria to provide effective remedies and reparation, including
adequate compensation, restitution, satisfaction or guarantees of
non-repetition that the Honourable Court may deem fit to grant to human
rights defenders, activists bloggers, journalists and other online and
off-line media practitioners that have been harassed, intimidated,
unlawfully arrested, detained, and unfairly prosecuted by the Defendant
6. SUCH FURTHER orders the Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the
circumstances of this suit.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.