As Nigeria deepens its digital transformation and expands its reliance on information and communications technologies, the tension between press freedom and cyber-security regulation has become increasingly pronounced.
The Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of expression and the press under Section 39, while Section 22 imposes a duty on the media to hold government accountable.
At the same time, the state bears a legitimate responsibility to protect digital infrastructure, prevent cybercrimes, and ensure national security through the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of 2015, as amended in 2024.
In principle, these imperatives should coexist harmoniously. In practice, however, cyber-security measures have at times intersected with press freedom in ways that undermine democratic values, revealing justice gaps that must be urgently addressed.
A central challenge is maintaining a fair balance: protecting the right of citizens and journalists to scrutinise public officials and expose wrongdoing, while ensuring that digital spaces are not abused for defamation, cyberstalking, falsehoods, or cyberbullying.
Citizens have every right to criticise those who govern them. They have the constitutional liberty to demand accountability, expose corruption, and question policy decisions. However, this right does not extend to spreading malicious falsehoods, tarnishing reputations unjustly, or weaponising digital platforms to intimidate, harass, or defame others whether private individuals or public officials.
A democratic society cannot flourish where journalists are harassed for exposing the truth, nor can it thrive where false information and cyberbullying are left unchecked. This balance is essential:
Those who maliciously defame, lie against, or cyberbully others must face the law.
Those who act in the public interest, exposing corruption, abuse of office, or breaches of the law, must never be victimised or silenced under the guise of cyber-security enforcement.
This equilibrium is the hallmark of a mature democracy.
The Cybercrimes Act was designed to combat genuine threats, hacking, identity theft, online fraud, terrorism financing. Yet certain provisions, particularly those relating to “cyberstalking” or content that may “cause annoyance” or “insult,” are vaguely defined. These ambiguities have enabled selective prosecutions against journalists, activists, and whistle-blowers whose only “offence” was publishing uncomfortable truths.
Despite amendments, journalists continue to face arrest and prosecution under the Act. The result has been widespread self-censorship. Many avoid investigative stories involving powerful interests for fear of legal backlash. This undermines the press’s constitutional role as the watchdog of the nation.
Academic studies affirm this chilling effect: media practitioners increasingly avoid sensitive interviews, deep investigative work, and fact-based but controversial reporting.Nigeria’s legal framework has also been criticised internationally. In 2023, the ECOWAS Court ruled that parts of the Press Council Act violate free-expression rights by discriminating against online and citizen journalists. Yet cyber-security laws continue to be applied in ways that mirror these shortcomings.
Additionally, the Cybercrimes Act grants broad powers to obtain digital or subscriber data. Without stringent judicial oversight, such powers can be, and in some cases have been used to track or intimidate media professionals and critics.
Unchecked misuse of the cyber-security framework has far-reaching implications: it reduces accountability. It creates fear of criminalisation which discourages journalists from exposing corruption.
Again, perceived pressure on media actors damages confidence in public institutions and most sadly, ambiguous laws invite arbitrary enforcement in the system. At the civic space, citizens become hesitant to express opinions or engage in public debate. The truth is that in a democracy where citizens fear speaking the truth, that country can be said to be at war with itself.
To restore legitimacy and balance, Nigeria must undertake deliberate reforms:
1. Thorough Review of the Cybercrimes Act. Ambiguous provisions that criminalise legitimate expression should be redrafted or repealed. Offences must be clearly and narrowly defined to distinguish between genuine cyber offences and lawful public-interest reporting.
2. Strengthened Procedural Safeguards. Access to journalists’ or citizens’ digital data should require judicial warrants. Independent oversight bodies must ensure that security agencies do not overreach or weaponise the law.
3. Legal Recognition of Digital Journalism. Media laws must be updated to protect online journalists and citizen reporters, in line with ECOWAS Court directives, ensuring equal protection under the law.
4. Capacity Building. Journalists need training on cyber law, digital security, and data rights. Law-enforcement officers also require training to respect constitutional protections and avoid abuses.
5. Judicial and Institutional AccountabilityCourts must defend free expression by stopping frivolous prosecutions of journalists. Civil-society organisations must monitor enforcement and demand accountability where abuses occur.
Press freedom and cyber-security are not mutually exclusive. Nigeria can, and must protect both. A secure digital environment is vital for national stability, but it cannot come at the cost of silencing journalists or stifling democratic discourse. Similarly, citizens must exercise their freedoms responsibly, avoiding defamation, cyberbullying, or malicious falsehoods.
The real challenge, and opportunity lies in ensuring that those who misuse the digital space face the law, while those who expose corruption or defend the public interest are protected, not punished.Bridging this justice gap is essential for strengthening democracy, restoring public trust, and safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s governance system.
Dr. M.O Ubani SAN Legal Practitioner/Policy Analyst was the former Chairman of Section of Public Interest and Development Law (NBA Spidel).
This was discussed as a Panelist in one of the sessions of the just concluded Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) Conference in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.