When Power Players Expose Mass Surveillance: The El-Rufai Wiretapping Saga and the Cybercrimes Paradox

A high-profile airport confrontation has pulled back the curtain on alleged warrantless surveillance apparatus, but who investigates the investigators?

The recent clash between former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai and National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu has exposed a troubling double standard at the heart of the digital rights framework in Nigeria. While legal experts like Abuja-based lawyer Pelumi Olajengbesi correctly point out that phone tapping constitutes a serious criminal offense under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, El-Rufai's counter-allegations raise a more fundamental question: what happens when the suspected perpetrator is the state itself?

The Accusations

Following his attempted arrest at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in February, 2026, El-Rufai publicly admitted to listening to an intercepted phone conversation in which Ribadu allegedly ordered his detention. But he didn't stop there. In a revealing statement, the former governor declared: "The government thinks that they're the only ones that listen to calls...the government does it all the time. They listen to our calls all the time without a court order."

This isn't just political mudslinging. These words come from someone who has operated at the highest levels of governance; a former minister and two-term governor with intimate knowledge of state security operations. His allegations carry institutional weight precisely because of this is insider perspective.

The Legal Framework vs. Reality

The legal framework for electronic surveillance appears comprehensive on paper.  Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees the right to privacy  of  citizens,  their  homes,  correspondence,  telephone conversations  and  telegraphic  communications.

Furthermore, Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015 (as amended) is explicit: "Any person, who intentionally and without authorization, intercepts by technical means, non-public transmissions of computer data, content, or traffic data... commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years or to a fine of not more than N5,000,000.00 or to both."

The law makes no exception for government officials. The prohibition applies to "any person", a deliberate choice of words that encompasses both private individuals and state actors.

The Warrant Requirement

Section 39 of the Cybercrimes Act and the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2018 establish strict conditions for lawful interception. A judge may only authorize interception "where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the content of any electronic communication is reasonably required for the purposes of a criminal investigation or proceedings."

The Regulations further specify that a warrant is necessary except in narrowly defined emergency situations involving: immediate danger of death or serious injury, activities threatening national security and organized crime activities.

Even in these emergency circumstances, Regulation 12(4) mandates that the authorized agency "shall apply for a Warrant to the Judge within 48 hours after the interception has occurred... and where the application is not made, or denied within 48 hours, the interception shall terminate immediately and further interception shall be treated as unlawful."

Who Can Request Interception?

Under Regulation 12(1) the Office of the National Security Adviser (represented by the NSA or designee not below Assistant Commissioner rank) or the State Security Services (represented by the Director or designee of equivalent rank).

Notably, the NSA, Nuhu Ribadu himself, is one of only the few officials empowered to seek lawful interception orders. This makes El-Rufai's allegation that Ribadu ordered his surveillance particularly significant: if such interception occurred without judicial authorization, the very official charged with seeking warrants lawfully may have bypassed the legal process entirely.

The Reality: Systematic Circumvention?

Yet El-Rufai's claims that "The government does it all the time. They listen to our calls all the time without a court order", suggest a pattern of systematic circumvention, not by rogue actors, but by the very state apparatus charged with upholding these laws.

If true, this represents a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law. The regulations impose severe penalties for non-compliance: N5,000,000 fines for violations, plus N500,000 daily penalties for continuing offenses (Regulation 16). These penalties apply to "any person, Licensee or its officers" again, no carve-out for government agencies. Section 12 of the Cybercrimes Act also criminalizes unlawful interceptions of communications.

The legal framework is therefore, clear. The alleged practice, as described by a former governor with insider knowledge, appears to violate it systematically. This gap between law and practice transforms surveillance regulations from protective shields into paper tigers which are enforced against citizens while ignored by those in power.

The Expanding Surveillance Infrastructure

El-Rufai's allegations align disturbingly with documented evidence of growing surveillance capabilities in Nigeria. According to research from the Institute of Development Studies, Nigeria has spent billions of dollars acquiring sophisticated surveillance technology. The country has procured systems capable of monitoring communications, tracking locations, and conducting mass data collection, often with minimal transparency or oversight.

The Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University reports that Nigeria's surveillance ecosystem includes partnerships with international technology vendors and deployment of invasive monitoring tools. These systems operate in what researchers describe as a legal grey zone, where the technological capacity for surveillance far outpaces regulatory frameworks designed to protect citizens' privacy.

The Harvard research notes that authorities have acquired tools for intercepting mobile communications, monitoring internet traffic, and collecting metadata on citizens' digital activities which is precisely the kind of warrantless surveillance El-Rufai now alleges is routine practice.

The Financial and Human Cost

The scale of investment in surveillance infrastructure is staggering. As the IDS study reveals, the country has channeled billions into surveillance technologies even as critical public services remain underfunded. This spending occurs largely outside public scrutiny, with procurement processes that lack transparency and accountability mechanisms.

More troubling still, these surveillance capabilities have allegedly been deployed not primarily for national security purposes, but for monitoring political opposition, civil society activists, and journalists. The Harvard analysis documents cases where surveillance tools have been used to target dissenting voices rather than genuine security threats. A pattern consistent with El-Rufai's claims about politically motivated monitoring.

The Accountability Vacuum

Lawyer Olajengbesi has called for security agencies to investigate El-Rufai's admission of listening to intercepted communications. But this raises the paradox at the heart of this affair: Who investigates allegations against the government when the government controls the investigative machinery?

The Harvard research highlights a critical gap in Nigeria's digital rights architecture: the absence of independent oversight bodies with real power to monitor and sanction state surveillance activities. While the Cybercrimes Act and the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2018 theoretically requires judicial authorization for interception, researchers found that compliance mechanisms are weak and enforcement is selective.

If El-Rufai's broader allegations are accurate, i.e., that warrantless mass surveillance of citizens' phone calls and online activities is routine government practice, then Nigerians face a surveillance state operating outside its own legal framework. The Cybercrimes Act and the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2018, becomes merely decorative legislation, enforced selectively against citizens while the state enjoys de facto immunity.

The Technology Behind the Surveillance

According to IDS findings, the government of Nigeria has acquired sophisticated interception systems capable of real-time monitoring of telecommunications networks. These systems can capture voice calls, text messages, and internet communications without leaving traces detectable to the targets. The infrastructure includes both passive collection systems and active interception capabilities and this makes El-Rufai's claim about routine, warrantless call monitoring technically plausible.

The Berkman Klein Center's investigation notes that telecommunications providers in Nigeria are often compelled to cooperate with security agencies, sometimes through informal pressure rather than legal process. This creates a system where lawful interception procedures can be bypassed entirely, with communications accessed directly through telecoms infrastructure.

What This Means for Digital Rights

This confrontation between political heavyweights inadvertently validates long-held suspicions within the digital rights community: that citizens' communications are subject to systematic, warrantless monitoring. Civil society organizations have raised these concerns for years, often dismissed as conspiracy theories. When someone of El-Rufai's stature; with decades navigating power corridors, makes such allegations, it demands serious attention.

The Harvard study emphasizes that unchecked surveillance powers fundamentally undermine democratic participation. When citizens cannot communicate privately, they cannot organize effectively, hold government accountable, or exercise their rights to free expression and assembly. The chilling effect of pervasive surveillance extends far beyond those directly targeted.

The Way Forward

1.   Independent oversight mechanisms for state surveillance activities with real enforcement power as recommended by researchers at IDS, including civilian oversight boards with subpoena power and security clearances to audit surveillance operations.

2. Transparency reports from telecommunications providers and security agencies about interception requests and warrants, a practice the Berkman Klein Center identifies as essential for accountability in democratic societies.

3. Judicial reforms ensuring that interception warrants are genuinely scrutinized, not rubber-stamped, with specialized courts trained in digital rights and surveillance law.

4. Legislative review of the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2018 to close loopholes enabling abuse and align the Regulation with international human rights standards.

5.  Equal application of cybercrime laws, whether the accused is a citizen or state actor.

6.  Public disclosure of surveillance procurement contracts and capabilities, as called for by civil society researchers, to enable informed democratic debate about surveillance powers.

Conclusion

The irony is stark: laws designed to protect electronic privacy may be routinely violated by those charged with enforcing it. While El-Rufai's own admission warrants investigation, his counter-allegations expose a potentially far graver systemic problem. The documented evidence of multi-billion dollar surveillance infrastructure in the country, combined with research showing weak oversight mechanisms, suggests El-Rufai may be revealing an open secret within the power elite.

Until the country establishes genuine accountability for state surveillance activities, the Cybercrimes Act and Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2018 will remain what many fear they already are i.e., tools for controlling citizens rather than protecting their digital rights.

The question remains unanswered: In a democracy, when the government allegedly breaks the law on a mass scale, who investigates?

 

Lawyer Sues Meta Over Unlawful Facebook Account Suspension

 

A legal practitioner Timothy Tion, Esq., has instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit against Meta Platforms Inc. (owners of Facebook) at the Federal High Court, Makurdi Division, challenging the suspension of his Facebook account on allegations of “fraud and deception.”

Case Background

On January 11, 2025, Mr. Tion after posting the word "Rubbish" in response to a Facebook post, received an automated email from Facebook stating that his account had been suspended for allegedly violating Meta’s Community Standards on fraud and deception. The email further informed him that he had 180 days to appeal the decision, failing which the account would be permanently disabled.

However, Mr. Tion argues that:

a. No specific allegations or evidence were provided;

b.He had no meaningful opportunity or reasonable channels to appeal the decision;

c. The vague nature of the communication deprived him of due process.

He asserts that the suspension—based solely on an opaque algorithmic assessment—has disrupted his professional engagements, particularly within legal discourse networks such as the Lawyers in Nigeria Facebook group.

Constitutional Violations Alleged

The suit alleges that Meta’s actions breached the following rights under the 1999 Constitution (as amended):

1. Section 36 – Right to Fair Hearing

2. Section 39 – Freedom of Expression

3. Section 40 – Freedom of Association

4. Section 42 – Protection from Discrimination

Mr. Tion contends that Meta provides direct support to business accounts in Nigeria, while non-commercial users like himself are left without effective channels for redress—an unequal treatment that amounts to discriminatory practice.

Reliefs Sought

Mr Tion, seeks the following court orders:

1. A declaration that the suspension was unlawful, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

2. An order for the immediate reinstatement of the account.

3. A public apology from Meta Platforms Inc.

4. Damages totaling ₦300 million broken down as follows:

a) ₦100 million for emotional distress, reputational injury, and loss of professional connections.

b) ₦200 million in exemplary damages.

Statements

“Meta’s automated systems should not override constitutional rights. I’m pursuing this case not just for myself, but for millions of Nigerians who rely on social media for professional and social connection.”

— Timothy Tion, Esq., Applicant

“Global tech platforms must be accountable when operating in Nigeria. This lawsuit challenges the unchecked power of digital corporations over users’ rights.”

— Matthias Ikyav, Esq., Counsel for the Applicant

The case is expected to test the bounds of digital rights enforcement and corporate accountability in our legal system. Hearing is scheduled for June 4th 2025

Senator Ned Nwoko’s Data Protection Bill: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

 The proposed Bill to Amend the Data Protection Act (SB 650, 2025), sponsored by Senator Ned Nwoko, has ignited fierce debate. While framed as a solution to tax evasion, unemployment, and digital accountability, critics argue the bill risks becoming a weaponized tool to stifle dissent and shield powerful elites—including its sponsor—from public scrutiny.

A History of Abusing Laws to Silence Critics

Nigeria already has a troubling track record of weaponizing laws like the Cybercrimes Act 2015 and Criminal Defamation statutes to target journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens. Recent examples include:

1 The activist and lawyer Dele Farotimi, was charged under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (As Amended) for alleged bullying and harassment and disseminating false information for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order, through his online expressions .

2. Agba Jalingo’s Detention: The Cross River-based journalist was charged with “cyberstalking” and treason after reporting on alleged corruption involving a state governor. International outcry forced his release after months in detention.

3.    Abubakar Idris: The blogger, known as Dadiyata, vanished August 2, 2019 after criticizing Kaduna State politicians on social media. His whereabouts remain unknown.

4. #EndSARSCrackdown (2020): Authorities targeted protesters and supporters online, freezing bank accounts and threatening social media users under “cyberbullying” charges.

5.   In September 2023, Chioma Okoli, a Lagos-based entrepreneur, criticized Nagiko Tomato Mix on Facebook, calling it overly sweet and suggesting it could be harmful. Her post garnered significant attention, leading Erisco Foods to file a petition accusing her of defamation and cyberbullying. ​

Subsequently, Okoli was arrested by plainclothes police officers while attending church. She was detained overnight in a cell with poor conditions before being transferred to Abuja for further questioning.

The manufacturer, Erisco Foods, accused her of defamation and cyberbullying. She was arrested during church, detained overnight, and transferred to Abuja under Nigeria’s Cybercrime Prohibition Act, facing up to three years in prison. The case sparked public outrage, with Amnesty International condemning it as a threat to free speech. While Erisco defended its actions, critics saw it as corporate overreach and misuse of cybercrime laws to silence consumer opinions. Okoli’s ordeal highlights the growing suppression of digital expression in Nigeria.

These cases reveal how existing laws are abused to punish criticism, not combat crime. Adding mandatory blogger registration and physical office requirements risks amplifying this repression. As Amnesty International noted in 2024, “Nigerian authorities increasingly conflate dissent with ‘fake news’ to justify censorship.”

The Hypocrisy of “Taxation” and “Accountability”

Senator Nwoko’s bill claims to target “big tech tax evasion,” yet glaring contradictions undermine its credibility. The alleged “$10 billion loss” cited by Nwoko lacks verifiable data.

Major technology companies such as Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and others have been contributing to Nigeria's tax revenues. According to a report by The Punch, these companies paid approximately ₦3.85 trillion in taxes to the Federal Government during the first nine months of 2024. This amount includes both Company Income Tax (CIT) and Value Added Tax (VAT), reflecting a 68.12% increase from the ₦2.29 trillion collected during the same period in 2023.

Similarly, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) reported that foreign digital companies, including interactive computer service platforms and internet intermediaries, contributed over ₦2.55 trillion (approximately $1.5 billion) in taxes in the first half of 2024.

These figures indicate a significant increase in tax compliance and revenue from big tech companies operating in Nigeria.

Forcing companies to open offices ignores modern remote-work trends. Instead, Nigeria could adopt global models like the OECD’s Digital Tax Framework, which ensures fair taxation without physical presence mandates.

Meanwhile, the bill’s focus on bloggers—a loose term encompassing millions of Nigerians—appears politically motivated. Requiring bloggers to “register with a union” or maintain “verifiable addresses” creates bureaucratic barriers that disproportionately affect small-scale creators and government critics.

Ned Nwoko’s Personal Baggage and Motives

Critics allege Senator Nwoko’s bill is a retaliatory move to silence online scrutiny of his lifestyle. The senator, married to actress Regina Daniels (30 years his junior), has faced viral gossip about alleged affairs with younger women, including actress Chika Ike. In 2025, blogs like Instablog9ja amplified rumors linking him to Ike, sparking social media mockery.

Nwoko’s response? A fiery speech condemning “fake news” and “reckless bloggers.” Weeks later, SB 650 was tabled. When lawmakers rush to regulate speech after personal scandals, it reeks of vendetta, not public interest.

Better Solutions Exist

The misinformation crisis in Nigeria is real, but SB 650 is a dangerous remedy. Alternatives include:

1.    Public Education Campaigns: Partner with the National Orientation Agency and civil society to teach digital literacy, critical thinking, and fact-checking.

2. Strengthen Existing Laws: Enforce penalties for proven defamation or incitement without criminalizing free speech.

3.   Incentivize Big Tech Collaboration: Offer tax breaks for tech companies to establish local hubs voluntarily, fostering jobs and cooperation on content moderation.

4. Protect Whistleblowers: By protecting and  safeguarding citizens who expose corruption, the need for anonymous criticism would reduce.

Conclusion: A Democratic Backslide in Disguise?

Senator Nwoko’s bill risks entrenching authoritarianism under the guise of “economic patriotism.” By conflating legitimate taxation goals with oppressive registration schemes, it echoes tactics used by dictatorships to mute opposition.

The digital space is the last frontier of free expression in Nigeria. Once regulated by political interests, democracy itself is bound to collapse. For a nation already ranked 112th/180 on the Press Freedom Index, SB 650 could be the final nail in the coffin.

The Need to Narrow the Scope of Cybercrime Laws: Lessons from Dele Farotimi's Case

 

1.0    Introduction

Cybercrime laws have become essential tools for combating crimes in the digital age, addressing issues such as hacking, identity theft, and the spread of malicious software. However, when these laws are broadened to include offenses that merely involve ICTs (information and communication technologies) as a medium rather than a direct target, they risk becoming instruments of overreach, censorship, and abuse. The recent case of Nigerian activist and lawyer Dele Farotimi, charged under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (As Amended) for alleged bullying and harassment and disseminating false information for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order, through his online expressions, underscores why these laws should be restricted to core cybercrimes.

This article examines the distinction between core cybercrimes and cyber-enabled offenses, the risks posed by overbroad cybercrime laws, and the implications of Farotimi's case for the future of digital rights and governance.

2.0   Understanding Core Cybercrimes

Core cybercrimes are offenses that inherently require ICT systems as both targets and tools. Without these technologies, these crimes would not exist. Examples of such crimes include spreading computer viruses, hacking a bank's servers to steal funds, or launching denial-of-service (DoS) attacks to disable websites are quintessential core cybercrimes. These activities are explicitly technological and could not occur without ICT systems. Without these technologies, these crimes would not exist. The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, an international treaty regarded as the gold standard for defining cybercrimes, identifies five primary categories:

i. i.   Illegal Access: Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems or networks.

ii.  Illegal Interception: Eavesdropping on communications without permission.

iii. Data Interference: Altering, deleting, or damaging data without authorization.

iv.   System Interference: Disrupting the functionality of computer systems or networks.

v. Misuse of Devices: Creating or distributing tools (like malware) intended for committing cybercrimes.

3.0   Cyber-Enabled Offenses: A Different Domain

In contrast, cyber-enabled offenses are traditional crimes carried out using ICTs as a medium. Crimes like fraud, harassment, defamation, and even terrorism can occur both online and offline. For example, using social media to harass someone is a digital extension of harassment that does not require specialized cybercrime laws to address. Similarly, spreading misinformation online is akin to traditional defamation.

By conflating these offenses with core cybercrimes, many nations have crafted overly broad cybercrime laws, making it easier for authorities to exploit them for political or oppressive purposes. For example, in Turkey, provisions of its cybercrime legislation have been used to suppress online dissent and silence critics of the government under the guise of combating cyber-related threats.

4.0   Dele Farotimi: A Case in Point

Dele Farotimi faces multiple counts charge under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (As Amended), for statements made during YouTube interviews and press conferences about his book "Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System." The charges stem from his criticisms of alleged corruption in the judiciary and his commentary on specific legal cases. Notably, these charges primarily invoke Section 24(a) and 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act, which deal with cyberstalking and false information dissemination. The charges appear to target his online statements rather than any activity that constitutes a core cybercrime.

Farotimi's case demonstrates the dangers of conflating core cybercrimes with cyber enabled crimes and the problematic expansion of cybercrime laws beyond their legitimate scope:

i.       Nature of the Activity: Farotimi's actions - expressing opinions about the judiciary and sharing his experiences - are traditional forms of speech that happen to use digital platforms. They don't constitute inherently technological offenses.

ii.         Platform vs. Crime: The only "cyber" element in these charges is the use of YouTube as a communication medium. The underlying activities (criticism, commentary, allegations of corruption) are traditional forms of expression that predate the internet.

5.0    Legal Discrepancy in Dele Farotimi's Cybercrime Charges

5.1.   The Charges as Filed

5.1.1 Section 24(a) - Bullying and Harassing

Several charges allege that Farotimi's statements were made "with the intention of bullying and harassing" named persons. These statements include: (i) comments about legal proceedings, (ii) observations about judicial conduct in specific cases, (iii) criticisms of alleged corruption in the justice system and (iv) expressions of opinion about systemic issues in the legal or justice system.

5.1.2 Section 24(1)(b) - False Information

Other charges claim his statements "contained false information for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order." The contested statements include: (i) claims about corruption in the judiciary, (ii) discussions of specific court cases and their handling, (iii) commentary on his personal experiences within the legal system and (iv) analysis presented in his book "Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System".

5.2. The Actual Law

Section 24(1): A person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of Computer Systems or Network that-

(a) is pornographic; or

(b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life or causing such message to be sent: commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or both.

(2) A Person who knowingly or Intentionally Transmits or causes the Transmission of any communication through a Computer System or Network-

(a) to bully, threaten or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person;

(b) containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to harm the person of another, any demand or request for a ransom for the release of any kidnapped person, to extort from any person, firm, association or corporation, any money or other thing of value, or

(c) containing any threat to harm the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction-

(i) in the case of paragraphs (a) and (6) of this sub-section, to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or a minimum fine of N25.000,000.00 and

(ii) in the case of paragraph (c) of this subsection, to imprisonment for a term of 5 years or a minimum fine of N15,000,000.00.

5.3. Misapplication of Section 24(2)(a)

The charges cite "Section 24(a)" for harassment whereas under the Act, there is no Section 24(a). The actual Section 24(1)(a) deals with pornography. The relevant harassment provision is in Section 24(2)(a).

While there was indeed a technical error in citing "Section 24(a)" instead of the correct Section 24(2)(a) for harassment, this error does not invalidate the charge or warrant setting aside the conviction if Dele is convicted. This is because established case law holds that when an offense known to law is properly disclosed, the penalty is prescribed in existing law, and neither the accused nor counsel were misled by the incorrect citation, the conviction should stand absent any miscarriage of justice. See the case of ADONIKE v. STATE(2015) LPELR-24281(SC) Per John Inyang Okoro, JSC at Pp 20 - 21 Paras B – E.

Furthermore, Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 explicitly provides that such errors in stating particulars are not material unless the defendant was actually misled by the error.

Therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that the Dele Farotimi was materially misled by the incorrect section citation or suffered prejudice as a result, the technical error in citing the wrong section number should not affect the validity of the proceedings or the ultimate conviction.

6. The Risks of Overbroad Cybercrime Laws

Farotimi's case raises serious concerns about the intent and application of cybercrime laws. By prosecuting Farotimi for his expressions, the Nigeria Police Force has blurred the lines between protecting against cyber threats and stifling dissent. This misuse of cybercrime laws sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that such laws can be weaponized against political opponents, activists, and ordinary citizens.

The overreach of cybercrime laws has far-reaching consequences, both for individuals and for society at large.

6.1. Suppression of Free Speech

Cybercrime laws with vague language can easily be used to target individuals exercising their right to free expression. Farotimi's case is just one example of how online speech can be criminalized under the guise of combating cybercrime. This trend threatens to silence dissenting voices and erode democratic principles.

6.2. Overburdening Legal Systems

Overly broad cybercrime laws place significant pressure on already strained legal and enforcement systems. When cybercrime laws expand to include offenses that are not inherently technological—such as online defamation, harassment, or even activism—it can lead to several systemic challenges: 

6.2.1. Diverted Focus from Genuine Threats

Expanding the scope of cybercrime laws forces law enforcement agencies to handle a wide range of cases, many of which do not require specialized cyber expertise. For example, prosecuting an online comment as cyber harassment requires investigative resources that could have been better directed toward identifying and mitigating core cybercrimes like hacking, unauthorized debits from customer bank accounts or ransomware attacks. This misallocation weakens the overall effectiveness of cybersecurity measures. 

6.2.2. Complexity of Digital Investigations

Investigating cyber-related offenses requires significant expertise, advanced tools, and collaboration with international entities. When law enforcement is forced to deal with a high volume of cases, many of which may involve non-criminal online behaviour, they risk becoming bogged down in cases that do not contribute to cybersecurity. This inefficiency not only overburdens legal systems but also reduces public trust in their ability to address critical digital threats. 

6.2.3. Erosion of Trust Between Law Enforcement and the Public

When the Nigeria Police Force uses the Cybercrime Act to prosecute individuals for online speech or activism, it creates an impression of the Police being complicit in political suppression or subjugation. This perceived misuse of resources can undermine public trust in the justice system and foster resentment against the Police. 

Here are some recent examples of cybercrime incidents in Nigeria that underscore the importance of focusing cybercrime laws on core offenses:

Nigerian banks reported a series of fraud-related cybercrimes over the years, with billions lost to hacking and phishing schemes. For instance, a 2022 report detailed how N523 million was stolen from a single account through a coordinated cyber-attack that funnelled money across hundreds of bank accounts.

In 2024, Hope Payment Service Bank reported a massive cyberattack resulting in a loss of over ₦10 billion. The funds were transferred across multiple accounts, prompting an investigation and court orders to freeze over 800 implicated accounts. This highlights the need for law enforcement to prioritize complex cyber fraud cases over less critical cyber-enabled offenses.

Similarly, Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) faced a significant security breach in August 2024, where its website was compromised by hackers. This incident raised fears of customer data theft and caused major disruptions in online banking operations.

In another case, a syndicate hacked into a bank's server to create fictitious credits worth N1.87 billion. This demonstrates the advanced techniques used by cybercriminals and the necessity of robust cybersecurity measures.

These examples show the increasing sophistication of core cybercrimes in Nigeria, and why the Nigeria Police Force should focus its resources and expertise towards preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting such crimes using the Cybercrimes Act instead of prosecuting online criticism or defamation using the Cybercrimes Act.

6.3. Chilling Effect on Digital Activity 

The "chilling effect" refers to the discouragement of legitimate online behaviour due to fear of legal repercussions. When cybercrime laws are overly broad or ambiguously defined, they create uncertainty about what constitutes criminal behaviour, leading to self-censorship and reduced participation in digital spaces. 

6.3.1. Impact on Free Expression

People may refrain from posting opinions, criticisms, or controversial content online, fearing that their statements might be interpreted as cyber harassment, defamation, or other offenses. In environments where authorities use cybercrime laws to target dissent, individuals are less likely to engage in public debates, reducing the vibrancy and diversity of digital discourse. 

6.3.2. Stifling Activism and Advocacy

Activists and advocates who rely on digital platforms to organize campaigns, raise awareness, or criticize policies are particularly vulnerable to chilling effects. If they perceive a risk of prosecution under cybercrime laws, they may avoid using these platforms, weakening their impact and ability to mobilize support. 

6.3.3. Hindering Journalism

Journalists such as Fisayo Soyombo, often use digital tools to investigate and publish stories on issues of public interest. However, the threat of cybercrime charges for reporting on sensitive topics can lead to self-censorship. For example, journalists may avoid exposing corruption or misconduct if they fear being accused of spreading false information or defaming individuals under Cybercrimes Act. 

6.3.4. Economic Consequences

The chilling effect can also impact businesses and entrepreneurs. Startups and companies that depend on open digital communication may face challenges if their employees or users are hesitant to engage freely online. This hesitation can stifle growth, collaboration, and the sharing of ideas, ultimately hindering economic progress in the digital space. 

The combined effect of overburdening legal systems and creating a chilling effect on digital activity is a weakened digital ecosystem. Legal systems are less effective in addressing real cyber threats, while individuals and organizations become less willing to engage in online activities that drive progress, innovation, and civic engagement. 

Therefore, restricting cybercrime laws to core offenses ensures that law enforcement can focus on genuine cyber threats, while the public can participate freely in digital spaces without fear of unwarranted prosecution. By refining these laws, governments can strike a balance between maintaining cybersecurity and protecting fundamental rights, preserving the integrity of the legal system and the vibrancy of the digital age.

7. International Perspectives on Cybercrime Laws

The global debate over cybercrime laws highlights the importance of specificity and restraint. The draft UN Cybercrime Convention has been criticized for its overly broad scope. Advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and CIVICUS, a global alliance dedicated to strengthening civil society, argue that the convention risks criminalizing acts that are not inherently harmful, such as security research or whistleblowing.

In their critique, the organizations emphasize that cybercrime laws should focus exclusively on core cybercrimes. Core cybercrimes comprise offenses in which ICTs are the direct objects as well as instruments of the crimes; these crimes could not exist at all without the ICT systems. A useful reference for the types of crimes that are inherently ICT crimes can be found in Articles 2-6 of the Budapest Convention: illegal access to computing systems, illegal interception of communications, data interference, system interference, and misuse of devices. For example, spreading a computer virus in the wild; using a password logger to steal someone else's password and access their email or photos; breaking into the computer system of a bank to steal money; using malicious software to delete all the data of a former employer's systems.

8. Lessons for Nigeria and Beyond

Farotimi's case offers a crucial lesson for policymakers in Nigeria and other nations: the need to align cybercrime laws with international best practices and democratic values. This includes:

8.1. Restricting Cybercrime Laws to Core Offenses

Cybercrime laws should address crimes that directly target ICT systems, such as hacking, malware distribution, and data breaches. Cyber-enabled offenses should be handled under existing laws for fraud, harassment, or defamation.

8.2. Safeguarding Free Expression

Cybercrime laws should explicitly protect freedom of expression. Activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens should not face legal repercussions for sharing opinions or engaging in peaceful dissent online.

8.3. Building Capacity to Address Genuine Threats

Law enforcement agencies should focus on developing expertise to combat core cybercrimes effectively. This includes training, resources, and partnerships with international organizations.

9. Conclusion

The case against Dele Farotimi is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by overly broad cybercrime laws. It highlights the need for policymakers to draw a clear line between core cybercrimes and cyber-enabled offenses, focusing on crimes that inherently involve ICT systems.

By refining cybercrime laws to be specific, narrow, and proportional, nations can uphold justice, protect freedoms, and create a safer digital environment. Farotimi's case should serve as a wake-up call, prompting governments worldwide to reconsider the scope and application of their cybercrime frameworks. In doing so, they can strike a balance between security and liberty, ensuring that the digital age remains a space for innovation, expression, and democratic engagement and  cybercrime laws serve their intended purpose, i.e. enhancing cybersecurity, without compromising fundamental rights..