“Must Nigerians Be Jailed For Speaking Out?” — Marshal Abubakar Challenges Tinubu’s Government Over Cybercrime Act

By Passman Akpos

Legal practitioner Marshal Abubakar, has raised concerns over what he describes as the growing deployment of state institutions to intimidate Nigerians, suppress dissent and discourage criticism of public officials, warning that the country’s commitment to freedom of expression could be undermined if the trend continues.

In a statement dated October 29, 2026, Abubakar questioned whether Nigeria was entering an era in which citizens could face arrest, detention and prosecution for expressing opinions or making allegations that powerful individuals find offensive.

He specifically condemned the arrest, detention and arraignment of former National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) president, Atiku Abuabakr Isa, and Doris Ogala, a governorship candidate in Abia State, over alleged cybercrime offences.

Although acknowledging that both cases are before the courts, Abubakar said his concerns centred on the circumstances surrounding the arrests and prosecutions, particularly where criminal proceedings might be used to respond to criticism or public commentary involving politically exposed persons.

He argued that public officials and other prominent individuals should be prepared to face scrutiny and criticism, insisting that allegations of defamation should ordinarily be addressed through appropriate civil remedies rather than the criminal justice system.

The allegations and concerns raised in the statement have not, in themselves, established that the prosecutions were politically motivated or that the authorities acted improperly.

‘IS THE END OF FREE SPEECH AND DISSENT UPON US?’

Abubakar opened his statement with a troubling question: “Is the end of free speech, dissent and freedom of expression in Nigeria upon us?”

He alleged that state institutions and security agencies were increasingly being deployed to intimidate citizens who criticise government officials or demand accountability.

According to him, the situation has allegedly extended beyond political activists to include business leaders, religious figures and other Nigerians who may find themselves in conflict with influential individuals.

He further alleged that some people could use their influence or financial resources to enlist security personnel against individuals whose comments they consider offensive.

Abubakar did not provide specific evidence in the statement to substantiate every allegation of improper influence. Nevertheless, his intervention raises questions about the appropriate boundaries between protecting reputations, investigating genuine cybercrime offences and safeguarding constitutionally protected expression.

He maintained that citizens should not be subjected to criminal proceedings merely because their opinions, allegations or criticism are unwelcome to powerful people.

ECOWAS COURT RULINGS ON SECTION 24 OF THE CYBERCRIME ACT

A major part of Abubakar’s argument rests on previous decisions of the ECOWAS Court of Justice concerning Section 24 of Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act.

He recalled that, in a case brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the regional court addressed concerns that Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 was vague and capable of being used to restrict freedom of expression.

Abubakar cited the judgment in SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19, delivered on March 25, 2022.

According to the legal arguments he reproduced, the court found that the wording of the provision did not sufficiently define the parameters of the offences it covered and was inconsistent with protections for freedom of expression under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

He also referred to a separate ECOWAS Court ruling in March 2024, which he said directed Nigeria to amend Section 24 of the 2015 Act.

Nigeria subsequently amended the Cybercrimes Act in 2024, revising several provisions, including Section 24.

However, Abubakar argued that the amendment had not resolved the broader concerns surrounding the use of cybercrime legislation against Nigerians who criticise public figures.

He called for the removal of any provisions that criminalise or impose disproportionate penalties on legitimate expression.

The distinction, however, remains important: freedom of expression does not automatically immunise individuals from liability for every statement made online. The central legal question in any particular case includes whether the alleged conduct falls within a valid criminal provision and whether the law is being applied consistently with constitutional and human rights protections.

ZIMBABWEAN COURT RULINGS CITED AGAINST CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

To reinforce his position, Abubakar cited decisions from Zimbabwe concerning the criminalisation of defamation.

He referred to Nevanji Madanhire v. Attorney General, in which Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court examined whether criminal defamation was compatible with constitutional protections for freedom of expression.

The court considered the potentially chilling consequences of arrest, detention and imprisonment for speech, particularly where civil remedies could be available to address harm to reputation.

Abubakar also referenced the subsequent Constitutional Court decision involving Nevanji Madanhire and Nquaba Matshizi, arguing that criminal defamation could discourage the free exchange of information and leave citizens less informed about matters of public importance.

According to the legal position he advanced, the possibility of prosecution can discourage citizens from raising questions about misconduct, corruption or other matters of public concern, even when those questions deserve investigation.

He argued that civil defamation proceedings offer an alternative avenue for individuals who believe their reputations have been damaged by false statements.

The Zimbabwean decisions, however, are persuasive comparative authorities rather than binding Nigerian judgments. Their relevance to any Nigerian prosecution must be assessed alongside Nigeria’s Constitution, applicable legislation and domestic judicial decisions.

NIGERIAN COURT PRECEDENT: THE NWANKWO CASE

Abubakar also invoked the Nigerian Court of Appeal’s decision in Nwankwo v. State (1983) 1 NCLR 366.

The case involved a publication titled “How Jim Nwobodo Rules Anambra State,” for which the defendant was prosecuted under provisions of the Criminal Code relating to defamatory publications.

According to Abubakar’s account, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the relevant provisions were inconsistent with constitutional protections.

He argued that the decision remains an important reminder that public criticism of government officials is a fundamental element of democratic accountability.

Abubakar warned that citizens should not surrender their constitutional rights because they fear retaliation from public officials or powerful individuals.

He further maintained that courts have a responsibility to examine whether the criminal justice system is being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes or as a means of punishing people for exercising protected rights.

ATIKU ISA AND DORIS OGALA CASES RAISE FRESH QUESTIONS

Abubakar’s statement specifically identified the cases involving Atiku Abuabakr Isa, a former NANS president, and Doris Ogala, a governorship candidate in Abia State.

He condemned their arrest, detention and arraignment over alleged cybercrime offences, arguing that the circumstances surrounding such prosecutions deserve public scrutiny.

While acknowledging that the cases are sub judice, he stressed that his criticism was directed primarily at the decision to initiate criminal proceedings in circumstances he believes could involve responses to criticism of prominent individuals.

He argued that public figures seeking political office should be willing to face scrutiny, criticism and public questioning.

However, the statement did not establish that the two defendants were prosecuted solely because of their political opinions, nor did it independently establish that the complainants or investigating authorities acted with improper motives.

The allegations underlying each case, the applicable statutory provisions and the evidence before the courts remain central to determining whether the prosecutions are legally justified.

The cases therefore raise a broader question for public debate: how can Nigeria protect individuals against genuine cybercrime while ensuring that criminal laws are not used to discourage lawful criticism, investigative journalism or political participation?

CALL FOR ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO DISCONTINUE THE CASES

In his most direct demand, Abubakar called on the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to intervene in the cases involving Isa and Ogala.

He urged the Attorney-General to exercise the constitutional power to enter a nolle prosequi, a formal decision by the Attorney-General to discontinue criminal proceedings in circumstances permitted by law.

Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, empowers the Attorney-General of the Federation to institute, take over and discontinue certain criminal proceedings, subject to the constitutional framework and the interests of justice.

Abubakar argued that the power should be considered where prosecutions raise serious concerns about the use of state authority against individuals expressing opinions on matters of public importance.

His appeal places the Attorney-General at the centre of a debate over prosecutorial discretion, human rights and the need to balance legitimate law enforcement with democratic freedoms.

Whether the Attorney-General will intervene remains to be seen.

‘PUBLIC OFFICIALS MUST ACCEPT SCRUTINY’

Abubakar maintained that individuals who seek public office must be prepared to face criticism and questions about their conduct, policies and public statements.

He argued that people who believe they have been defamed should pursue appropriate legal remedies rather than seek to have their critics arrested or detained.

His position reflects a longstanding democratic principle: public debate, particularly concerning government and political leadership, requires room for robust criticism.

At the same time, criticism and allegations must be assessed in context. The protection afforded to expression does not mean that every statement is necessarily lawful, nor does an allegation of cybercrime automatically establish that a prosecution is an attack on free speech.

The challenge for law enforcement and the courts is to distinguish legitimate investigations from proceedings that could unjustifiably restrict protected expression.

THE BIGGER QUESTION FOR NIGERIA

Abubakar’s intervention comes amid continuing debate over the relationship between Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation, freedom of expression and the use of criminal proceedings in disputes involving public figures.

His statement calls for a reassessment of provisions that could be used to punish speech, while urging the government to respect constitutional guarantees and regional human rights standards.

The central issues extend beyond the two cases he identified: whether Nigerians can freely question those in power, whether criminal law is an appropriate response to alleged defamation, and what safeguards should exist to prevent abuse of prosecutorial authority.

For journalists, activists, political aspirants and ordinary citizens, the answers carry significant implications for public accountability and democratic participation.

The ultimate test is not whether public figures are protected from criticism, but whether Nigeria can enforce valid laws without unnecessarily restricting citizens’ rights to speak, question authority and demand accountability.

Tarakirivoice will continue to follow developments in the cases involving Atiku Abuabakr Isa and Doris Ogala, including any judicial decisions or official responses relevant to the issues raised.

Editorial note: The cases mentioned are sub judice. Allegations of political motivation or improper use of security agencies should not be treated as established facts without supporting evidence. The legal arguments and quotations attributed to Marshal Abubakar are presented as his stated position.