Stop weaponising Cybercrime Act against dissent voices, Global Rights tells IGP

An international rights organisation, Global Rights, has called on the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, to stop repressing the voices of dissent, press freedom and civic space with the use of Cybercrime Act. The organisation premised its argument upon Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian constitution, saying it guarantees fundamental rights of every citizen, […]

An international rights organisation, Global Rights, has called on the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, to stop repressing the voices of dissent, press freedom and civic space with the use of Cybercrime Act.

The organisation premised its argument upon Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian constitution, saying it guarantees fundamental rights of every citizen, including freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

In an open letter sent to the IGP on Sunday, copies of which were made available to journalists in Abuja, Executive Director of Global Rights, Abiodun Baiyewu, said freedom of the press to hold the powerful accountable in our democracy is guaranteed under Section 22.

Daily Trust reports that the international organisation’s demand came on the heels of the detention of two journalists – Sodeeq Atanda of Foundation for Investigative Journalism and Hassan Mai-Waya Kangiwa, another journalist, for exposing the neglect at Kangiwa General Hospital in Kebbi State.

• Sudan’s paramilitary drones hit key army positions
• 2027: Nigerians Will Decide Tinubu’s Fate – Ex-NASS Member Makanjuola

Baiyewu said, “The Cybercrime Act was passed in 2015, ostensibly to provide a unified and comprehensive legal, regulatory and institutional framework for the prohibition, prevention, detection, prosecution and punishment of cybercrimes in Nigeria.”

She said the law was never meant to serve as a stumbling block to free expression or as a weapon to silence criticism of government or public officials.

“Yet, troublingly, Section 24 of the Act, in particular, has been applied selectively to criminalise dissent, turning what should be civil matters-such as defamation-into criminal offences.”