A Threat to Freedom or a Step Towards Order?

The recently passed Cybercrime Act, now enforceable law in Nigeria, has sparked significant controversy. While cybersecurity is a crucial and necessary area of legislation in today’s digital world, the content and implications of this Act raise serious concerns from the standpoint of natural justice, civil liberties, and legal proportionality.

Below is a breakdown of key sections of the law, followed by a critical examination of how each aligns, or conflicts with the principles of justice.

1. Section 3: Accessing Someone’s Phone or Computer (5 years imprisonment)

Legal Merit: This section criminalizes unauthorized access to another person’s digital device, which is consistent with global norms of protecting digital privacy.

Critical Observation: This provision is justifiable and aligns with modern cybersecurity standards, provided it clearly distinguishes between malicious hacking and consensual or incidental access.

2. Section 4: Modifying, Deleting, or Obstructing Data (5 years imprisonment)

Legal Merit: Protecting data integrity is essential. Cyber vandalism or sabotage can have severe implications.

Critical Observation: Again, the principle is sound, but enforcement must ensure that legitimate users (e.g., employees or partners with partial access) are not unjustly criminalized.

3 & 4. Section 5 & 6: Communicating or Possessing “Critical Information” (15 years imprisonment)

Major Red Flags:

• The phrase “critical information” is vague and susceptible to broad, subjective interpretation.
• Without a concrete, legally tested definition, these sections can be weaponized to silence dissent, journalism, or whistleblowing.
• Natural justice demands that laws be precise and predictable. Vague laws enable arbitrary enforcement, which violates that principle.

Comparative Insight: In most democratic societies, handling classified or sensitive information is restricted, but the law clearly defines what qualifies as such and intent matters. This Act does not appear to include such safeguards.

5. Section 10: Recording Private Conversations (2 years imprisonment)

Critical Concern:

• Making it illegal to record conversations even when you are a participant undermines personal agency, especially for victims of abuse, threats, or coercion who may need to document interactions as evidence.
• This violates the right to self-defense, and could protect abusers, harassers, or corrupt officials from accountability.

6. Section 19: Publishing Misleading Information (2 years imprisonment)

Major Concern for Press Freedom:

• The term “misleading information” is another legally ambiguous phrase. Is it about false information, satire, opinion, or inconvenient truths?
• Criminalizing such speech threatens freedom of expression and the role of the press in a democracy.
• In natural justice, intent is essential, punishment without proof of intent to deceive is fundamentally unjust.

Chilling Effect: Journalists, bloggers, and even everyday users could self-censor out of fear of prosecution.

7. Section 21: Disclosing Police Summons (5 years imprisonment)

Transparency Undermined:

• Making it an offence to publicly disclose that one has been summoned for cybercrime infringes on the right to speak out and could prevent victims from rallying legal or social support.
• In a system with historical issues of police abuse and unlawful detention, this raises serious transparency concerns.

8. Section 22: Being “Rude or Indecent” with Intent to Humiliate (2 years imprisonment)

Freedom of Speech at Risk:

• This provision is dangerously subjective. What is “rude” or “indecent” is highly contextual.
• This section could be used to suppress criticism, satire, or controversial opinions, particularly those aimed at public officials or institutions.
• The intent to humiliate is hard to prove objectively and opens doors for abuse of state power.

9. Section 24: Attempting to Incite Ethnic Divisions (Life Imprisonment)

Grave Punishment with Ambiguity:

• Ethnic incitement is serious and deserves legal response, but labelling it as domestic terrorism and applying life imprisonment raises proportionality concerns.
• Without clear thresholds (e.g., incitement to actual violence), the law could punish legitimate advocacy, historical discourse, or activism that challenges dominant narratives.

Contextual Danger: In a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria, political elites may exploit such laws to suppress minority voices or opposition.

Group Admins Beware: Vicarious Liability?

The accompanying advisory to group admins indicates that admins could be held responsible for what others post.

Legal Overreach: Unless an admin exercises direct editorial control, holding them criminally liable for others’ content is unfair and impractical. It may result in the stifling of online communities out of fear of prosecution.

Overall Evaluation:

In Favour:

• Protection against digital intrusion and sabotage (Sections 3 & 4) is necessary.
• Addressing ethnic incitement and data manipulation reflects awareness of digital risks.

Against:

• Vague, broad, and poorly defined terms like “critical information,” “misleading,” “rude,” or “indecent” enable arbitrary enforcement.
• Excessive penalties, like life imprisonment or multi-year sentences for vague offences, are disproportionate.
• The Act poses a serious threat to freedom of speech, transparency, and whistleblower protection.
• It lacks proper mechanisms to balance state power with individual rights.

The new Cybercrime Act, in its current form, represents a dangerous overreach of state power. While the intent to protect national digital infrastructure is valid, the implementation undermines core principles of justice, civil liberties, and democratic governance.

Laws that criminalize vague behavior, restrict transparency, and impose draconian sentences threaten to push Nigeria closer to digital authoritarianism.

Legislative reform, judicial oversight, and public discourse are urgently needed to align cybersecurity with the tenets of natural justice and constitutional freedom.