Nigeria’s cybercrime law and its ‘loopholes’

The Nigeria Cybercrimes Act 2015, made to contain the growing spate of Internet offences by seeking to arrest, prosecute and sentence anyone found guilty of committing cybercrime and allied offences, lacks all what it takes to adequately combat the menace, experts have said. Though the new law was expected to make the Internet a safer […]

The Nigeria Cybercrimes Act 2015, made to contain the growing spate of Internet offences by seeking to arrest, prosecute and sentence anyone found guilty of committing cybercrime and allied offences, lacks all what it takes to adequately combat the menace, experts have said.
Though the new law was expected to make the Internet a safer place, experts and stakeholders said this may not be unless the loopholes in the Act are blocked. 
The Act and the need to review it was the subject matter at the Technology Times Outlook Review of Nigeria Cybercrimes Act 2015, the thought leadership series that attracted various professions including legal professionals, the media and leaders in industry and government.
Speaking at the event, Mr. Basil Udotai, the Managing Partner of Technology Advisors, said the new legislation is a major step forward in the nation’s attempt to make cyberspace a safer place to live, work and play for the Nigeria Internet community.
“For years the Nigerian digital economy had carried on with the absence of a legal framework for cybercrime/cybersecurity; a glaring gap in law enforcement/national security framework as well as a debilitating weak link in our digital economy value chain”, he told attendees at the event.
Mr Udotai  added that, “the Cybercrimes Act, though long in coming and beset with certain challenging components, may be applied to effectively tackle Nigeria’s cybercrime and cyber security challenges. But deliberate efforts have to be made by the key players; Office of National Security Adviser and the Office of Accountant General of the Federation working with stakeholders to make this a reality.’’
Mr Emmanuel Edet, Head Legal Services & Board Matter Unit, National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), who also commended the enactment of the new law, cautioned that the definitions provided in the Act are “too specific” and may give room for offenders to devise other means of committing crimes outside the specific definitions of the law.
Mr Edet, a member of the Technology Times Outlook Panel, said “one of the challenges we had when going through the law was definitions. There is a danger of confusion when we use specific definitions.  For example, if we say someone commits a crime with an ATM machine and in the future we have another machine that is not called ATM to commit fraudulent act, that means, by definition, the person has not committed any offence or done anything wrong.’’
He also raised the issue of the Cyber Security Fund provided for in the new law saying that, “there is nothing that defines what those funds are used for. There is need for the government to fully articulate all these issues and collaborate with the citizens to have a proper framework as to the workings of the Act.’’
Mr Edet noted that the law is no doubt a welcome development but more needs to be put in place if we most win the war against cyber attacks in Nigeria.
Mr Edet said, “but with the new law in place, which spells out various degrees of punishment for cybercrime offenders, Nigerians will be fully-protected and be able to freely transact online businesses without further fear or intimidation, since there is a law in place.”
Another Panellist, Mr Alex Mouka, the immediate past Chairman of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch in his intervention said the law is a radical piece of legislation but that it “is structurally deficient.”
According to Mr Muoka, “as a lawyer, when I reviewed the Act, I asked myself who was responsible for this legislation. I am sorry to say it is one of the irresponsible legal legislations I have ever reviewed. It is structurally deficient.”
According to him, there is no structure in place to give life to the law. “It is surprising that the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) responsible for the Act through an Advisory Council is not itself a member of that Advisory Council. This is real funny. I also wonder who administers the alternative taxation foisted on Nigerians by the creation of the Cybersecurity Fund under this Act.”
Mr Muoka, who called for a quick review and adjustment of the Act also added that, “the issue of the expertise of the Local Enforcement Agents in prosecuting cybercrime and related cases is also suspect and I foresee that according to Section 7 of the Act, the Federal High Courts will be overburdened as they have been made the exclusive court to handle issues arising from cyber crime offences.’’
On his part, Mr Tobe Okigbo, the Chief Corporate Service Officer of Smile Communications Nigeria Limited, who gave a network operator’s perspective as a panellist at Technology Times Outlook said that the new law is risky from the compliance point of view.
According to Mr Okigbo, “from an operator’s point of view, I think the law is a major risk. The risk comes from the compliance issue. In my view, they should have made it possible for a commission like the Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC) to get involved in advising the President on information on critical infrastructure.”