The Federal Government has stated that the Federal Ministry of Justice
\nis committed to pursuing the amendment of the Cybercrimes Act, which
\nmany lawyers, journalists and activists have considered repressive,
\nunconstitutional and illegal.<\/p>\n
This was stated today by Mr. Terlumun George Tyendezwa, Head,
\nCybercrimes Prosecution Unit, Federal Ministry of Justice, at a Media
\nInteractive Session on the ‘Constitutionality and Legality of the
\nCybercrimes Act in Nigeria’, organized by the Socio-Economic Rights and
\nAccountability Project (SERAP) in collaboration with the National
\nEndowment for Democracy (NED), USA.<\/p>\n
At the Media Interactive Session held in Ikeja, Lagos, Mr. Tyendezwa
\nsaid: “The Cybercrimes Act is not perfect. One of the reasons why I am
\nhere is that I have an open door, we want to engage on the Act. We are
\ninterested in engaging with all stakeholders in the Justice sector.
\nWhatever is not useful, we can seek amendment on this. From the point of
\npassage, we as the operators knew that there were things that need to
\nchange. We are presently collating memoranda on amendment of the Act.
\nBut amendment takes time and cost money.”<\/p>\n
He also said: “We know the importance of law as a social driver. The
\noffice of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice
\ncontinues to place high value on entrenched fundamental human rights and
\nengaging with all stakeholders on the Cybercrimes Act is one of our
\napproaches.”<\/p>\n
Earlier at the meeting, a group of lawyers, journalists, activists and
\nother stakeholders unanimously declared the Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act as
\n“repressive, oppressive and unconstitutional. The Act should immediately
\nbe repealed or dropped, as many of its provisions blatantly offend the
\nrights to freedom of expression, association and media freedom.”<\/p>\n
The group also called on the next Attorney General of the Federation and
\nMinister of Justice to “prioritize challenging in court the
\nconstitutionality and legality of the Cybercrime Act, which is
\nantithetical to respect for freedom of expression including online and
\nthe government’s commitment to fight grand corruption.”<\/p>\n
Participants at the interactive session included: representatives of the
\nPremium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (PTCIJ), National
\nHuman Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Wole Soyinka Center for
\nInvestigative Journalism, Media Rights Agenda, the German Consulate,
\nDirector General of the National Orientation Agency.<\/p>\n
Others included: Mr. Terlumun George Federal Ministry of Justice,
\nCybercrimes Act, Nurudeen Ogbara former Chairman Nigerian Bar
\nAssociation, Ikorodu, Folake Falana, Malachy Ugwummadu, president,
\nCommittee For the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) and representatives of
\nBudgIT, CODE, Heda Resources, Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE), Cleen
\nFoundation, Federal Civil Service Pension, Community Life Project,
\njournalists, lawyers, activists and other stakeholders.<\/p>\n
Earlier, Mr Tayo Oyetibo, SAN in his paper titled The Constitutionality
\nand Legality of the Cybercrimes Act in Nigeria stated: “the supremacy of
\nthe constitution over every other law is an immutable principle of
\nNigerian constitutional law derived from the provisions of section 1(3)
\nof the constitution itself. In creating criminal offences, section 24(1)
\nof the Cybercrimes Act uses words that are entirely subjective in
\nmeaning to describe the actus reus elements of the offences, despite the
\nfact that the actus reus of an offence ought to be capable of objective
\nand not subjective definition.”<\/p>\n
According to him, “Worse still, the Cybercrimes Act makes no effort to
\ngive certainty to the meanings of any of the words used in its section
\n24(1) by defining them anywhere in the Act, which means that only
\njudicial definitions can be given to those words in any case where a
\nperson is charged with an offence under section 24(1) of the Act.”<\/p>\n
The paper read in part: “In the context of the constitutionally
\nguaranteed right of citizens to freedom of speech under the Nigerian
\nconstitution, there is the pressing question of whether the Cybercrimes
\nAct is fit for the purpose pursuant to which it was enacted,
\nparticularly in view of the provisions of its section 24(1)?”<\/p>\n
“It would appear that the answer to this poser is in the negative, which
\nmeans that it is imperative for deliberate steps to be taken to remedy
\nthe situation, particularly against the backdrop of widespread
\ncomplaints against the deliberate misuse and abuse of the Cybercrimes
\nAct against certain categories of persons in Nigeria.”<\/p>\n
“In this regard, this is not a matter in which long winding technical
\nrecommendations are necessary. The simple recommendation is that section
\n24(1) be entirely deleted from the Cybercrimes Act, due to its apparent
\nirreconcilability with the provisions of section 36(12) and 39(1) of the
\nconstitution.”<\/p>\n
“From a practical standpoint, it means that a person charged with an
\noffence under section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act will involuntarily be
\nplaying the lottery of judicial interpretation of the words and phrases
\nused in that section. This is because virtually all of the words used in
\nsection 24(1) of the Act are of such personal character that, any
\nattempt to define them is entirely subject to the whims and caprices of
\ntwo different sets of people- complainants and judges.”<\/p>\n
“It is impossible for a person to be convicted of an offence under
\nsection 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act without conjecture or inference by
\nthe court as to the meanings of the words used in that section. Worse
\nstill, such conjecture or inference can only be imputed by the court at
\nthe point of delivering judgment in the matter, at which point the
\naccused person will not have had the opportunity to be heard by the
\ncourt as to the court’s interpretation of the meanings of those words
\nand phrases.”<\/p>\n
“Apart from the above, every person is constitutionally guaranteed the
\nright to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and
\nto receive and impart ideas and information without interference under
\nsection 39(1) of the constitution. A scenario in which a person is bound
\nby section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act to second-guess the exercise of
\nhis right to freedom of expression under section 39(1) of the
\nconstitution is certainly not one contemplated by the constitution in
\nany way.”<\/p>\n
“Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are part of democratic rights
\nof every citizen; our legislature must guard these rights jealously as
\nthey are part of the foundation upon which the government itself rests.”<\/p>\n
“It is clear that section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act portends great
\ndanger for every person in Nigeria. This is by reason of the fact that
\nat the time of issuing any communication in exercise of the right to
\nfreedom of expression, it is impossible for a person to determine
\nwhether or not an offence is being committed under the Cybercrimes Act.
\nSurely, this is the exact scenario that the framers of the constitution
\nsought to legislate against by the inclusion of the express provisions
\nthat are sections 36(12) and 39(1) of the constitution.”<\/p>\n
“24(1) is a tool that readily lends itself to abuse and misuse by those
\nin authority against freedom of expression in Nigeria. This is
\nparticularly because the Cybercrimes Act contains no safeguards
\nwhatsoever to the enforcement of section 24, which carries with it
\nsevere criminal sanctions.”<\/p>\n
“The Cybercrimes Act is already in desperate need of a significant
\noverhaul to ensure that it does not unwittingly and unconstitutionally
\nplace citizens at the unfortunate risk of the luck of a criminal draw.”<\/p>\n
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,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39786,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n