Introduction

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that it lacks the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal defamation, resulting in the dismissal of two out of three cybercrime charges against social media influencer, Chizorom Harrison Ofoegbu, popularly known as Ijele.

The charges were brought by the police on behalf of Evangelist Ebuka Obi, leader of the Zion Prayer Ministry Movement Outreach.

Case Overview

The court’s decision came after Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), filed a preliminary objection challenging the validity of the trial. The court’s ruling also nullified the stringent bail conditions that had kept Ijele in prison, ordering the immediate release of his medical records to his legal team.

The third count, which was dismissed involved allegations that Ijele defamed Evangelist Obi via his social networks media handle, “The King of the Game,” by accusing him of performing fake miracles.

The court determined that this charge fell outside its jurisdiction, as criminal defamation is under the purview of state high courts, not federal ones.

Legal Implications

Jurisdictional Clarity: The ruling underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries between federal and state courts in Nigeria. By clarifying that criminal defamation cases should be tried in state courts, this decision may influence how future cases are filed and prosecuted.

Cybercrime Act Interpretation: The case also raises questions about the scope and application of the Cybercrime Act of 2015, particularly concerning charges related to online defamation. This may prompt further legal scrutiny and potential legislative revisions to delineate the boundaries of cybercrime and defamation more clearly.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

Protection of Free Speech: The dismissal of the defamation charge may be seen as a victory for free speech, particularly for social media influencers and activists who use digital platforms to express their views and hold public figures accountable.

1. Judicial Efficiency: The ruling helps streamline judicial processes by ensuring that cases are heard in the appropriate courts, potentially reducing the backlog in federal courts.
2. Precedent for Future Cases: This decision sets a legal precedent that could guide future defamation and cybercrime cases, promoting consistency and clarity in judicial proceedings.

Cons:

1. Potential for Misuse: The ruling might embolden individuals to make defamatory statements online, believing they can avoid federal prosecution. This could lead to an increase in harmful or false statements without immediate legal consequences.
2. Jurisdictional Confusion: While the ruling provides clarity, it also highlights existing confusion over jurisdiction in cybercrime and defamation cases. This could necessitate further legal reforms to ensure comprehensive coverage and understanding of these issues.
3. Impact on Victims: Evangelist Obi and others who feel defamed online might find it more challenging to seek justice, as they must navigate the complexities of filing cases in state courts, which might have different resources and procedural efficiencies compared to federal courts.

Conclusion

The Federal High Court’s ruling on its lack of jurisdiction over criminal defamation in the case against Ijele marks a significant development in Nigeria’s legal landscape. It underscores the necessity for clear jurisdictional boundaries and raises important questions about the intersection of cybercrime and defamation law. While the decision has both positive and negative implications, it ultimately contributes to the ongoing discourse on legal protections and the administration of justice in the digital age.

Planned Nationwide Protest to Take Place in Nigeria: Activists Unyielding on Nationwide Protest Amid Opposition

Introduction

Following the rising inflation and economic hardship being experienced allover Nigeria, a larger part of the population, particularly, the youth demographic has conveyed its intention to embark on a nationwide protest. However, there has also been a lot of opposition and groups calling for calm and asking the organizers not to embark on the protest and thread with caution.  Amid increasing resistance to the nationwide protest scheduled to commence on Thursday, August 1, notable activists, including Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) of the “Take It Back Movement” and Mr. Deji Adeyanju of “Concerned Nigerians“, have declared their determination to proceed.

The protest, driven by discontent over the state of the economy, has sparked significant tension and mobilisation from the Federal Government and security agencies, reminiscent of the 2020 #EndSARS protests.

Key Points

• Activist Stance: Various Activists have publicly confirmed the protest will go on, representing the voices of various disenchanted groups. 
• Regional and Religious Opposition: Major regional bodies like Afenifere (South-West), Yoruba Council of Elders (South-West), Ohanaeze Ndigbo (South-East), and PANDEF (South-South) have expressed divergent views on the protest. Several Christian organizations have cautioned that the protest could end in regret.
• Protest Dynamics: The protest, tagged #EndBadGovernance, is expected to last ten days and is allegedly been primarily organized by youths (Gen Z) operating through social media.

Legal Implications

Right to Protest:

The Nigerian law recognizes the right to peaceful protest by citizens. A protest is a public display of disagreement or opposition to an idea or activity. Every citizen has the right to peaceful assembly as well as the freedom to form an association or voluntary group.

As a result, no limitations should be imposed on exercising this right unless in the interests of national security or public safety, to prevent public unrest or criminality that may infringe on the freedom and rights of others. Some of the notable laws that provide the right to peaceful protest include: 

1. Section 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria guarantee the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and association. 

2. Public Order Act: The Act requires organizers to obtain police permission for public assemblies to ensure public safety and order. Section 1(3) requires individuals or groups to apply for and get police permit or clearance to organize demonstrations and nonviolent gatherings. The Court of Appeal, however, deemed Section 1(3) unlawful in the matter of Inspector General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party &Ors (2007) LPELR-8932(CA).

3. Nigeria is also a signatory to international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which supports the right to peaceful protest. 

On the other hand, Police Act, 2020 regulates the use of force, emphasising that force must be proportionate and necessary, with a preference for non-lethal methods. Thus, when a peaceful protest turns violent, the Police by virtue of the  Reviewed Police Force Order, 237 on the use of Force and Fire Arms, 2019, the Police are allowed to use only the force necessary and must be proportional to the violence or resistance, to quell a violent protest. 

Pros and Cons

Pros:

1. The protest provides a platform for citizens to express their grievances and demand accountability from the government.
2. The protest, if successful, is capable of enhancing democratic participation by involving citizens in the political process. 

Cons:

1. There is a potential for the protest to turn violent. Without proper management, protests can escalate into violence, causing harm and property damage. This can give the State an excuse to use force its citizens and cause serious harms. 
2. Prolonged protests can disrupt economic activities and daily life, affecting businesses and the economy. Depending on the outcome, this protest has a potential to harm citizens more. 

Conclusion

The planned protest underscores the growing discontent among Nigerian youths regarding economic conditions. While the right to protest is constitutionally protected, it also raises concerns about public order and safety. The response of the government and the outcome of the protest will be crucial in shaping Nigeria’s socio-political landscape.