Why Nigeria cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 should be scrapped?

By Moshood Oshunfurewa

The Nigeria Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024, signed into law on February 28, 2024, was introduced as a necessary response to the evolving landscape of digital crime, ranging from financial fraud to cyber terrorism. On the surface, it reflects a government attempting to modernize its legal framework in line with technological realities. However, beyond its stated intentions lies a far more troubling consequence: the steady erosion of civil liberties, the contraction of civic space, and the increasing normalization of state over reach. What should have been a tool for protection has, in practice, become an instrument of control.

The real question is not whether Nigeria requires cybercrime legislation, undoubtedly, it does. Rather, the pressing concern is whether this particular law aligns with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which remains the supreme legal authority. Evidence increasingly indicates that it does not. Sections 39, 35, 34, and 40 of the Constitution explicitly guarantee freedom of expression, personal liberty, human dignity, and the right to peaceful assembly. These are not optional rights; they are binding commitments that define Nigeria’s democratic identity. Yet, the Cybercrimes Act, especially its provisions on cyberstalking, has repeatedly been deployed in ways that undermine these guarantees. Instead of targeting genuine cybercriminals, it has been used to criminalize speech, dissent, and criticism.

Human rights organizations have consistently warned that the law’s vague language allows authorities to interpret ordinary online expression as criminal conduct. The result is a dangerous legal environment where journalists, activists, and everyday citizens can be arrested for opinions expressed on social media. This concern is not theoretical. The ECOWAS Court of Justice had earlier ruled that aspects of the Cybercrimes Act violate freedom of expression and called for reforms. Yet, the 2024 amendment failed to address these structural issues, retaining ambiguous provisions that continue to enable abuse. In effect, the law preserved the very defects it claimed to correct.

The consequences are evident in the growing number of cases involving journalists and citizens. At least 25 journalists have faced prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act since its introduction. Following the 2024 amendment, no fewer than eight journalists were arrested or prosecuted within just seven months. In 2024 alone, 45 separate attacks on journalists were recorded, affecting more than 70 individuals. By 2025, this number had risen to 69 documented incidents of harassment, detention, and abuse against media practitioners. These figures point to a pattern rather than isolated occurrences. They reveal a systematic use of the law to suppress scrutiny and silence dissenting voices. Investigative reporters exposing corruption have been detained, bloggers have been arrested for critical posts, and ordinary Nigerians have found themselves charged with “cyberstalking” simply for expressing dissatisfaction with public officials.

This pattern has contributed significantly to the shrinking of Nigeria’s civic space. Increasingly, security agencies are implicated in attacks on journalists, surpassing non-state actors in frequency and severity. The implications are profound. Journalists are beginning to self-censor, avoiding sensitive topics that could attract legal consequences. Whistleblowers are less willing to come forward, fearing arrest rather than trusting institutional protection. Digital activism, once a vibrant space for civic engagement, has become fraught with risk. When citizens cannot freely express themselves, particularly in a digital era where online platforms serve as primary spaces for public discourse, democracy itself becomes weakened. Participation declines, accountability diminishes, and governance becomes insulated from criticism.

The misuse of the Cybercrimes Act cannot be separated from Nigeria’s broader law enforcement challenges. The issue is not only the content of the law but also the context in which it is enforced. Reports of police brutality remain widespread, reflecting systemic weaknesses in accountability and oversight. During the 2024 cost-of-living protests, Amnesty International reported that Nigerian police used excessive force, resulting in the deaths of at least 24 protesters. This pattern echoes past incidents, including the widely documented abuses associated with the now-disbanded SARS unit. When a law with broad and vague provisions is enforced by institutions with a history of rights violations, the risk of abuse becomes almost inevitable. Instead of protecting citizens, the law becomes a mechanism for intimidation.

At the centre of the Cybercrimes Act’s problems lies its ambiguity. Legal provisions must be clear and precise, allowing citizens to understand what constitutes an offense. However, terms such as “cyberstalking” are defined so broadly that nearly any form of online criticism can be interpreted as criminal. This violates fundamental principles of the rule of law. Even lawmakers have begun to acknowledge this flaw, as evidenced by ongoing efforts to introduce further amendments aimed at clarifying these provisions. Yet, such incremental changes are unlikely to resolve a problem that is fundamentally structural. The issue is not merely how the law is applied but how it is written.

Another critical dimension of the problem is its disproportionate impact on Nigeria’s youth. With over 60 percent of the population under the age of 25, Nigeria is one of the youngest countries in the world. This demographic is highly engaged in digital spaces, using social media for communication, entrepreneurship, and political participation. The Cybercrimes Act, however, has increasingly been perceived as targeting this group. Content creators, online activists, and young entrepreneurs are among those most frequently affected. 

This creates a dangerous disconnect between the state and its most dynamic and innovative population. The #EndSARS protests demonstrated the power of digitally mobilized youth, highlighting both their capacity for organization and their demand for accountability. Attempting to suppress this energy through restrictive legislation does not eliminate dissent; it intensifies it. A government that criminalizes expression risks provoking the very instability it seeks to avoid.

Nigeria’s democratic standing is already under pressure. The country’s ranking in global press freedom indices reflects growing concerns about the safety of journalists and the independence of the media. Increasing reports of arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention, and harassment further reinforce the perception of democratic decline. Democracy is not sustained by elections alone. It requires an environment in which citizens can speak freely, hold leaders accountable, and participate meaningfully in governance. When these conditions are undermined, democracy becomes hollow, reduced to form without substance.

Given these realities, the argument for scrapping the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 becomes compelling. Attempts at reform have not addressed the law’s fundamental flaws. The amendment did not reduce abuses, clarify ambiguous provisions, or protect constitutional rights. Instead, it has provided a renewed legal framework under which existing patterns of repression continue. Scrapping the law is not an act of recklessness; it is a necessary step toward restoring constitutional integrity. It reflects a commitment to aligning Nigeria’s legal system with its democratic principles.

This does not mean abandoning the fight against cybercrime. On the contrary, Nigeria requires a robust and effective legal framework to address genuine digital threats. However, such a framework must be carefully designed. It must be constitutionally compliant, clearly defined, and narrowly focused on actual cyber offenses such as fraud, hacking, and cyberterrorism. It must include strong judicial oversight to prevent abuse and must prioritize the protection of citizens’ rights rather than their restriction. A human right, centered approach is not incompatible with security; it is essential to it.

•Oshunfurewa, a public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos

The post Why Nigeria cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 should be scrapped? appeared first on Vanguard News.