Editorial | Tarakirivoice Editorial Team
There is something deeply troubling about a society where citizens begin to fear the very institutions established to protect them, where journalists think twice before exposing wrongdoing, where activists wonder whether speaking the truth could cost them their freedom, and where an ordinary Nigerian must look over his shoulder before expressing an opinion about the government he elected or the public officials whose salaries are paid with taxpayers’ money.
What kind of democracy are we building if the people must remain silent to remain safe?
What kind of freedom do Nigerians truly enjoy if expressing dissatisfaction with government policies can bring the police to their doorsteps?
And what becomes of our nation when the law, which should be a shield for the oppressed, is perceived by citizens as a sword in the hands of the powerful?
These are questions the Nigeria Police Force must answer—not with anger, intimidation or arrests, but with reflection, responsibility and a renewed commitment to the constitutional rights of the Nigerian people.
At Tarakirivoice Newspaper Enterprise, we are deeply concerned about reports of Nigerians being arrested, threatened or subjected to police investigations over their online comments, criticism of public officials and expressions of dissatisfaction with those in power.
We recognise that not every online statement is lawful, that cybercrime is a genuine threat and that the police have a legitimate responsibility to investigate suspected criminal conduct. But we must draw a clear and unmistakable line between fighting cybercrime and criminalising freedom of expression.
The Cybercrime Act was enacted to fight cybercrime, not to manufacture criminals out of citizens who dare to speak.
THE LAW WAS NOT CREATED TO SILENCE THE PEOPLE
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, provides a legal framework for addressing offences committed through computer systems and digital communications.
Its legitimate objectives include combating cyber fraud, unauthorised access to computer systems, identity theft, certain forms of online threats and other offences specified by law.
Nigeria needs this law. Victims of internet fraud deserve justice. Citizens whose accounts are hacked deserve protection. Businesses suffering cyberattacks deserve the assistance of law enforcement. People subjected to genuine threats and digital abuse deserve to have their complaints taken seriously.
But the existence of cybercrime does not give anybody a licence to misuse the law.
A law designed to protect the public must not become a convenient instrument for protecting public officials from embarrassment.
A law designed to punish criminal conduct must not be twisted into a mechanism for punishing citizens for asking difficult questions.
And a law designed to strengthen security must never become an excuse to weaken the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.
The police must understand that criticism is not automatically a crime. Anger is not automatically criminality. Disagreement is not automatically cyberstalking. And a government official’s displeasure with a social media post does not, by itself, establish that the author has committed an offence.
Under Section 24 of the amended Cybercrime Act, the relevant elements of the specific offence must be established. The provision addresses particular categories of communications, including certain knowingly false messages sent for specified harmful purposes and certain communications involving threats, intimidation or harassment.
It does not create a general offence of criticising the government.
The police must therefore investigate the conduct alleged, examine the evidence and apply the actual words of the law—not merely the anger, influence or status of the person making a complaint.
If criticism alone becomes sufficient grounds for arrest, then every citizen who disagrees with a powerful person is potentially at risk. That is not the promise of constitutional democracy.
POLICE OFFICERS, PLEASE REMEMBER WHOSE RIGHTS YOU ARE SWORN TO PROTECT
To the men and women of the Nigeria Police Force, we appeal not only to your professional responsibility but also to your humanity.
Before you handcuff a young Nigerian over an online statement, remember that the person standing before you is somebody’s son or daughter.
Somebody’s father.
Somebody’s mother.
Somebody’s husband or wife.
Somebody whose family may spend sleepless nights wondering whether their loved one will return home safely.
Behind every arrest is a human being. Behind every detention is a family waiting for answers. Behind every allegation is a life that can be damaged by the weight of an accusation, even before a court determines whether an offence has been committed.
Imagine a young Nigerian who has watched his community struggle with poor roads, unemployment, insecurity, inadequate electricity or the alleged mismanagement of public funds. Frustrated, he takes to social media to express his dissatisfaction with those responsible for governance.
Perhaps his language is harsh. Perhaps his words are uncomfortable. Perhaps his criticism strikes at the reputation of a powerful individual.
The appropriate response must depend on the actual content, circumstances and applicable law. Where a genuine offence is suspected, the police should investigate it lawfully. Where a statement is lawful criticism, however uncomfortable it may be, it should not be transformed into a criminal case simply because somebody in authority dislikes it.
A democracy cannot function if only praise is permitted and criticism is treated as hostility.
The police must never forget that their responsibility is to the Constitution and the law, not to the personal sensitivities of individuals who occupy public office.
Public office is a responsibility, not a crown that places its holder above criticism.
The citizens who question government are not necessarily enemies of the state. Many are Nigerians who want their country to work, their communities to develop and their leaders to fulfil their promises.
Some may speak imperfectly. Some may be emotional. Some may even be wrong about certain facts. But the answer to an allegation of falsehood is not automatically an arrest. Evidence, clarification, correction, lawful remedies and due process all have their proper place.
The police must not allow the authority of the uniform to become an instrument for settling personal scores.
WHEN OPPRESSORS HIDE BEHIND THE LAW
History repeatedly teaches us that oppression does not always announce itself with guns, military decrees or soldiers on the streets.
Sometimes, oppression arrives wearing the respectable clothes of legality.
Sometimes, it hides behind official letters, police invitations, criminal complaints and carefully selected sections of the law.
Sometimes, those who want to silence a voice do not openly declare that they hate criticism. Instead, they search for a legal provision that can be stretched, misinterpreted or selectively applied to frighten the critic into silence.
This is why every law-enforcement institution must exercise its powers with restraint, impartiality and integrity.
A law may be legitimate in its purpose, yet its application in a particular case may be unjust. An arrest may follow a complaint, yet the complaint itself may be motivated by a desire to intimidate. A police investigation may be legally permissible, yet the manner in which it is conducted may violate a person’s rights.
These possibilities demand vigilance, not blind obedience to whoever makes the loudest complaint.
We are not suggesting that every police action involving a journalist or activist is unlawful. Nor are we suggesting that journalists and activists should be exempt from the law. No individual should enjoy immunity from accountability merely because of a profession, political affiliation or public profile.
Our concern is more fundamental: the law must be applied fairly, and the police must not allow their powers to be used to suppress lawful dissent.
When powerful individuals can use state institutions to intimidate critics, the distinction between law enforcement and persecution becomes dangerously blurred in the public imagination.
And when citizens begin to believe that speaking the truth is more dangerous than remaining silent about wrongdoing, democracy suffers a wound that no press conference can easily heal.
The greatest danger is not merely that one journalist may be arrested or one activist may be intimidated. It is that thousands of other Nigerians may begin to silence themselves.
They may stop asking questions about public expenditure.
They may stop reporting alleged corruption.
They may stop challenging policies that harm their communities.
They may watch injustice unfold and decide that their families are safer if they say nothing.
That is how the atmosphere of fear spreads—not necessarily through the arrest of everybody, but through the intimidation of enough people to make everyone else afraid.
Nigeria must not travel down that road.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS NOT A GIFT FROM THE POLICE OR THE GOVERNMENT
Let us educate the public about an important constitutional principle.
Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, subject to the Constitution and applicable law.
This right is not a favour granted by a governor, a minister, a police commissioner, a political party or any government agency.
It is a constitutional right.
The right to freedom of expression does not mean that every statement is lawful. It does not authorise criminal threats, fraud, unlawful invasions of privacy or other offences established by law. Nigerians must also take responsibility for what they publish and ensure that serious allegations are supported by credible evidence.
But restrictions on expression must have a lawful basis. They must not be invented simply because an opinion is inconvenient to someone with power.
Section 22 of the Constitution also recognises the role of the press in holding government accountable by monitoring governance and ensuring responsibility and accountability among public officeholders.
These constitutional principles are especially important in a country where citizens rely on journalists, civil society organisations and independent voices to scrutinise public institutions.
Without the freedom to question authority, corruption can become harder to expose. Without the freedom to challenge public policy, government mistakes can persist. Without the freedom to report wrongdoing, the people may be denied information they need to make informed decisions about their country.
A government that welcomes only praise cannot adequately measure the pain, anger or expectations of its citizens.
And a police force that treats lawful criticism as a threat risks undermining the very public confidence it needs to perform its duties effectively.
THE POLICE MUST NOT BECOME THE FIRST REFUGE OF THE POWERFUL AGAINST THEIR CRITICS
There is a troubling distinction between seeking justice and seeking to silence an opponent.
A person who genuinely suffers threats, harassment or another criminal offence should be able to approach the police and expect a professional response.
But a public official who is merely embarrassed by criticism should not be allowed to turn a police station into a private complaints department for suppressing dissent.
The police must carefully examine complaints rather than automatically treating the complainant’s interpretation of a social media post as proof of criminal conduct.
What exactly was published?
What offence is alleged?
What evidence supports the allegation?
Does the conduct satisfy the elements of the relevant statutory provision?
Is the complaint about a genuine criminal threat, or is it fundamentally about disagreement, embarrassment or criticism?
These questions should form part of a professional assessment before coercive powers are exercised.
The identity of the complainant must not determine the outcome. A powerful politician and an ordinary trader should receive the same impartial consideration under the law.
The same principle must apply whether the person being investigated supports the government, opposes it, belongs to the ruling party or has no political affiliation at all.
Justice loses its credibility when the law appears strong against the weak but cautious before the powerful.
The police should be an institution where citizens seek protection, not a place they fear because someone influential has taken offence at their words.
TO THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE: THIS IS A MOMENT FOR REFLECTION
The leadership of the Nigeria Police Force has a responsibility to ensure that officers understand the limits of their powers and the constitutional rights of citizens.
We therefore call on the Inspector-General of Police and other senior police authorities to strengthen clear operational guidance on the application of the Cybercrime Act, particularly where complaints arise from journalism, political commentary, public-interest reporting and criticism of public officials.
Officers should receive regular training on Section 24 of the amended Act, constitutional protections for freedom of expression, lawful arrest procedures and the distinction between criticism and conduct that genuinely satisfies the requirements of a criminal offence.
Complaints involving online expression should be assessed on their evidence and legal merits, not on the influence of the complainant or the political sensitivity of the subject.
Where there is credible evidence of a criminal offence, the police should investigate professionally and impartially. Where an investigation reveals that a complaint has no proper legal basis, the matter should not be allowed to become a vehicle for intimidation.
Allegations of police misconduct should also be examined through appropriate accountability mechanisms.
These measures would not weaken the police. They would strengthen public confidence, improve professionalism and demonstrate that the Nigeria Police Force understands the difference between exercising lawful authority and abusing power.
A police officer who respects constitutional rights is not a weak officer. An officer who refuses to misuse the law is not disloyal to the institution. Such an officer is protecting the honour of the uniform.
The true strength of a law-enforcement institution is not measured by how many citizens it can arrest. It is measured by how effectively it protects the public, investigates genuine offences, respects the law and earns the trust of the people.
TO NIGERIANS: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
The public must also understand that freedom of expression comes with responsibilities.
Do not fabricate evidence. Do not knowingly spread false information to achieve unlawful ends. Do not issue criminal threats or engage in conduct prohibited by law. Do not assume that social media is a place where accountability disappears.
Before publishing serious allegations, verify the information. Preserve documents and other supporting evidence. Seek responses from the people or institutions concerned. Correct material errors when they are discovered.
If the police invite you over an online publication, take the invitation seriously. Seek legal advice where possible, ask which alleged offence is under investigation and preserve relevant records.
If you believe your rights have been violated, consult a qualified lawyer or an appropriate human-rights organisation about the remedies available under Nigerian law.
Knowing your rights is not an invitation to lawlessness. It is a way to ensure that the law is respected by everyone, including those entrusted with enforcing it.
Citizens must not use freedom of expression as an excuse to commit genuine offences. Equally, public authorities must not use the existence of genuine online offences as an excuse to suppress lawful expression.
Both principles can—and must—coexist.
A POLICE OFFICER’S CONSCIENCE MUST BE STRONGER THAN ANYONE’S INFLUENCE
To every police officer reading this editorial, we ask you to reflect on the meaning of public service.
You, too, are a Nigerian.
You have family members who may one day need to question a public decision. You have friends who may express frustration over the cost of living, insecurity or poor public services. You have children who deserve to grow up in a country where they can speak responsibly without living in fear of arbitrary punishment.
The rights you protect today are not rights reserved for your critics. They are the same rights that protect you and your loved ones.
The uniform you wear should inspire confidence, not silence born of fear.
The authority you exercise should be guided by the Constitution, not by personal loyalty or pressure from influential individuals.
And the law you enforce should be applied with fairness, even when the person exercising the right to expression disagrees with you.
There may come a day when the very person whose voice you protect today will disagree with your position tomorrow. That is the nature of freedom in a democracy. Rights are meaningful precisely because they protect people whose opinions may be unpopular, uncomfortable or different from our own.
The measure of a just society is not how it treats people who praise those in authority. It is how it treats those who challenge them within the law.
Please, let the police be remembered as an institution that protected Nigerians in their moments of vulnerability, not one that made them afraid to speak.
Let history record that when the boundaries between law enforcement and the suppression of dissent became blurred, responsible officers chose the Constitution, professional integrity and the dignity of the human person.
Let the Nigerian police be a refuge for the frightened citizen, a defender of the vulnerable and an impartial institution that does not bend the law to accommodate the powerful.
That is not too much to ask.
It is the very foundation of public trust.
OUR FINAL WORD: DO NOT LET THE LAW BECOME A CAGE FOR THE NIGERIAN PEOPLE
Nigeria has paid a heavy price for the struggle for democratic government. Generations of citizens, journalists, activists and political actors have fought for a country where public power is accountable and the people are not merely spectators in their own affairs.
That struggle must not be undermined by the careless or excessive use of laws intended to protect society.
The Cybercrime Act must remain a tool for combating genuine cybercrime, not a convenient weapon for settling personal disputes, intimidating critics or discouraging investigative journalism.
The police must remember that the law is not above the Constitution, that the power to investigate is not the power to persecute, and that the existence of a complaint does not establish guilt.
Public officials must learn to tolerate scrutiny. Journalists must remain committed to accuracy and fairness. Citizens must exercise their freedoms responsibly. And the police must uphold the rights of all Nigerians without fear or favour.
A nation does not become stronger when its citizens are afraid to speak. It becomes stronger when its institutions are confident enough to hear criticism, investigate wrongdoing and correct their mistakes.
When the people can speak without unlawful intimidation, democracy breathes.
When journalists can investigate without being treated as enemies, accountability grows.
When the police protect the rights of citizens, public confidence deepens.
But when criticism is treated as a crime simply because it displeases the powerful, the entire country pays the price.
To the Nigeria Police Force, we make this heartfelt appeal: please, rethink every action that risks turning a law designed to protect the public into an instrument that frightens it. Enforce the law, but enforce it fairly. Investigate genuine offences, but do not criminalise lawful dissent. Protect the powerful and the powerless equally, because justice that favours one side is no longer justice in the eyes of the people.
The uniform is respected when it protects the people. The law is respected when it is applied fairly. And democracy survives when the voice of the citizen is not treated as the enemy of the state.
Nigeria deserves a police force that protects freedom within the law, a government that welcomes accountability and a society in which no citizen must choose between speaking responsibly and living in fear.
The people are not asking for permission to commit crimes.
They are asking for the right to remain citizens in a democracy.
Let the law punish genuine crime, not silence lawful criticism. Let the police protect the people, not the sensitivities of the powerful. And let no one hide behind the law to perpetuate oppression.
That is the Nigeria we must defend.
That is the democracy we must preserve.
And that is the duty we owe to generations yet unborn.
— TARAKIRIVOICE NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE
Without Fear Nor Favour
