Журналиста Дениса Одаму освободили после ареста за критику губернатора Кросс-Ривер

Denis Odama is free. But perhaps he should never have been in jail. Odama, a Cross River businessman and social commentator, was arrested in Lagos on August 9 and taken to Calabar after a police petition accused him and others of cyberbullying, defamation and incitement against the Cross River State Government. The petition was submitted on August 5 by lawyers acting for the Governor’s Special Adviser on General Duties, Ekpenyong Akiba, and Commissioner for Works, Pius Ankpo. It cited Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Code Act. A Facebook comment attributed to Odama was central to the complaint. Screenshots circulating online showed a comment under Governor Bassey Otu’s July 27 post about the swearing-in of two commissioners and a cabinet reshuffle. Premium Times said it could not independently locate the comment on the governor’s original Facebook post, although the comment was cited in the police petition. The police initially detained Odama at the FESTAC Police Division in Lagos before taking him to Calabar. On August 13, a Chief Magistrates’ Court in Calabar, presided over by Magistrate Mercy Ene, remanded him for seven days at the Afokang Correctional Centre. The case was adjourned until August 19. When he returned to court on August 19, the prosecution had not filed the substantive case. His lawyer sought bail, but Odama remained in custody until the following day. Governor Otu intervened that evening. In a statement published from his verified Facebook post, Otu said Odama had been reported to the police by some of his aides over what he described as a “derogatory and insidious” statement against him. He directed the aides to withdraw their complaint and instructed the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice to take steps to discontinue the case and secure Odama’s release. He also referred to Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. The following day, the prosecution withdrew the case, and Odama was released. The case, identified as suit No. MC/MSC/413/2026, was struck out by Magistrate Ene. The governor’s intervention was welcome, but it came after Odama was arrested in Lagos, taken to another state, and remanded in a correctional center. His own statement says aides reported him to the police. The Cross River Government has said Otu did not order the arrest and has maintained that the officials who made the complaint acted in their personal capacities. The aides can explain why criticism of the governor was taken to the police as a criminal complaint. The police can explain the decision to arrest and transport Odama from Lagos to Calabar. The prosecution can explain why he remained in custody when no substantive charge had been filed. The court can explain the legal basis for the remand. Another detail in the Odama case deserves attention. The petition cited Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Code Act, but the police later said the alleged Facebook comment amounted to an offense under Section 24(2) of the Cybercrimes Act. Zone 6 Police spokesman, Jefferson Osupe, told Premium Times that the police regarded the disputed comment as an offence under the Cybercrimes Act and specifically referred to Section 24(2). Nigeria enacted the Cybercrimes Act in 2015 to address offenses committed through computer systems and electronic networks. The law covers serious offences including cyber fraud, unauthorised access, identity theft and other forms of technology-related crime. Nigeria needs legislation to address such offenses. Section 24 of the original law, however, became one of its most controversial provisions. It criminalised certain offensive, menacing and false communications, including messages sent with the intention of causing annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety. The ECOWAS Court of Justice examined the provision in a case brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). In its July 2020 judgment, the court found Section 24 of the 2015 Act incompatible with Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ordered Nigeria to repeal or amend it. Nigeria amended the Act in 2024. The amended Section 24(1) covers messages that are pornographic or that the sender knows to be false when sent for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order or posing a threat to life. Section 24(2) separately addresses communications intended to bully, threaten or harass another person where the communication puts that person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm. The 2024 amendment did not end arrests under the law. In May 2024, Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, was arrested by the Nigeria Police National Cybercrime Centre. His employer said the arrest was connected to an investigation into alleged government corruption. Ojukwu disappeared on May 1, and FIJ learnt two days later that he was in police custody. Media reports said he remained there for more than a week without being brought before a court. The police said the arrest followed a petition. The police later said Ojukwu had been detained under a remand warrant issued by a court and that their investigation followed a petition concerning his report. He was released on May 10 after meeting his bail conditions. Ojukwu was not accused of hacking a government computer or stealing money online. His detention followed journalism about alleged financial mismanagement involving a government official. The police can investigate a complaint arising from a publication. But using a cybercrime law against a journalist for reporting alleged government wrongdoing deserves scrutiny. The use of the law against journalists continued after the 2024 amendment. Fejiro Oliver, the pen name of journalist and publisher Tega Oghenedoro, was arrested in Abuja on September 18, 2025, and taken to Asaba. He was charged with cyberbullying on October 3 over Facebook publications concerning Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori. The charge sheet also accused him of cyberstalking Senator Ede Dafinone through Facebook posts said to have been aimed at damaging his reputation. Oliver was granted N15 million bail on October 16 with two sureties but remained in custody because he could not meet the conditions. Two further defamation charges were filed the following day. He was eventually released on bail on November 18 after 61 days in custody, while the cybercrime and defamation cases remained pending. Ojukwu and Oliver show that the 2024 amendment has not stopped cybercrime allegations from being used in cases involving journalists and criticism of public officials. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported in November 2025 that at least three Nigerian journalists had been detained since August over allegations under the Cybercrime Act despite the 2024 reform. CPJ said at least 25 journalists had faced prosecution under the Act before the amendment and that five had faced prosecution since the reforms. Cross River also has a record of criminal proceedings against government critics. Agba Jalingo, publisher of CrossRiverWatch, was arrested in Lagos on August 22, 2019, after publishing an article questioning what had happened to N500 million approved for the Cross River State Microfinance Bank. He was taken to Calabar and later faced charges including terrorism, treasonable felony, and cybercrime. He spent months in custody during the proceedings. On March 21, 2022, the Federal High Court in Calabar dismissed the terrorism, treasonable felony, and cybercrime charges against Jalingo. Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu presided over the case. Jalingo was later arrested again in August 2022 following a complaint by Elizabeth Ayade, sister-in-law of former Governor Ben Ayade, and was charged in December 2022 under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act. He was eventually acquitted of those cybercrime charges in July 2024. The second Jalingo case involved Section 24 itself and arose from online publications concerning a politically connected person. It also came after his earlier prosecution in Cross River. Joseph Odok, a lawyer and lecturer who was also a critic of the Ayade administration, was arrested in Abuja on September 26, 2019, and taken to Calabar. He was arraigned on October 22 on allegations including terrorism and cybercrime and spent 117 days in police and prison custody before being granted bail in January 2020. The case was eventually struck out on July 1, 2021, after the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi. Justice Rosemary Dugbo-Oghoghorie of the Federal High Court in Calabar struck out the suit. Jalingo and Odok faced far more serious allegations than Odama, and the cases should not be treated as the same. Their cases remain part of Cross River’s record of criminal proceedings against government critics. There is also a constitutional problem that cannot be ignored. Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. Section 22 places a specific responsibility on the press, radio, television and other mass media to uphold the responsibility and accountability of government to the people. Those provisions do not give journalists or citizens immunity from criminal law. A person who threatens another, extorts money, hacks a computer or knowingly commits another offense online cannot escape prosecution simply because a computer or phone was used. But criticism of a governor, reporting on alleged corruption or publishing an opinion about the performance of government does not become cybercrime merely because it appeared on Facebook. A petition does not by itself establish a criminal offence. The police still have to investigate the allegation, establish the evidence and decide whether arrest is necessary. At the same time, the prosecution must determine whether the evidence supports a charge before asking a court to keep a citizen in custody. Odama’s case shows what can happen when those safeguards fail. He was arrested in Lagos, transferred to Calabar, and remanded for seven days. When he returned to court, the substantive case had not been filed. He was released only after the governor directed his aides to withdraw the complaint. A citizen should not have to spend seven days in a correctional centre before the state decides that the complaint against him should be withdrawn. Criminal prosecution cannot depend on whether a politician chooses to forgive his critic. If Odama committed a criminal offence, the offence was against the law and the state had the responsibility to prosecute it. If there was no sufficient evidence to sustain the charge, he should not have been detained in the first place. Again, Governor Otu’s intervention was welcome. It does not erase what happened before it. There is also a practical response available to people who are subjected to criminal proceedings without sufficient legal basis. Victims can challenge unlawful arrest and detention and, where the legal requirements are met, consider civil claims for malicious prosecution. Nigerian courts have repeatedly stated the requirements for such a claim. A claimant generally has to show that the defendant set the criminal process in motion, that the prosecution ended in the claimant’s favour, that there was no reasonable and probable cause and that the prosecution was malicious. The courts have also made clear that merely reporting to the police may not be enough where the police independently decide whether to prosecute. Journalists and other citizens who face apparently baseless criminal proceedings should therefore keep the petition, arrest records, detention records, court papers, bail conditions and evidence of how the case ended. They can then seek legal advice on whether the circumstances support a claim for malicious prosecution or other remedies. Such a claim will not succeed simply because a case was withdrawn, but officials who misuse criminal proceedings should not assume that the process carries no legal consequences for them. Public officials are entitled to challenge false allegations and defend their records. They are also entitled to use the courts where the law provides a remedy. They cannot expect the police to shield them from criticism simply because it is harsh, sarcastic, or politically inconvenient. Public officials will inevitably face criticism, including criticism that is crude, unfair or false. That does not turn every offensive or unflattering publication into cybercrime. The Cybercrimes Act is needed. Nigeria has enough online fraud and other technology-related crime to justify strong legislation and effective enforcement. What the country does not need is a system in which political complaints are turned into cybercrime cases and citizens are arrested and detained for criticising people in power. Odama is free because Governor Otu eventually intervened. That should not be the safeguard. A citizen should not need the governor’s permission to criticise the governor. The Constitution protects freedom of expression, and the police, prosecution and courts should not be used to punish citizens for exercising that right. The officials involved in Odama’s arrest should explain how the case reached the point at which a citizen was taken from Lagos to Calabar and remanded in custody when no substantive charge had been filed. Those answers should come from the institutions that exercised the powers, not from political intervention after the damage had been done. A citizen should not have to wait for a governor to intervene before he can regain his freedom after being arrested for criticising that governor. Remi Ladigbolu is a journalist based in Lagos