The amendment bill seeks to dismantle the legal ambiguities that have frequently been used to suppress investigative reporting and silence whistleblowers.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the first reading of a landmark bill aimed at amending the controversial Cybercrime Act.
The proposed legislation, titled, “Cybercrime Prohibition, Prevention (Amended) Bill (HB 2740), ” was introduced by the House spokesperson, Akin Rotimi (APC, Ekiti), and seeks to dismantle the legal ambiguities that have frequently been used to suppress investigative reporting and silence whistleblowers.
The proposed amendment focuses largely on revising Sections 24, 27 and 38 of the principal Act.
Particular concern was centred on the cyberstalking provision, which has remained the most controversial aspect of the law since it came into force.
Media organisations and civil society groups have called for its repeal, citing its use by authorities to harass journalists, bloggers, activists, and critics across Nigeria.
The proposed amendment focuses heavily on revising Section 24, the most controversial provision of the law.
The original 2015 Cybercrime Act became infamous for Section 24, which was ostensibly written to prevent online harassment.
However, its language was so broad that it criminalised sending any message that could be interpreted as causing annoyance, insult, or needless anxiety.
For years, this allowed powerful individuals to arrest journalists who published investigative reports, claiming the reports “insulted” them or caused “annoyance.”
In 2024, an amendment was signed into law to narrow this focus to messages that were pornographic or likely to cause a breakdown of law and order.
However, this new amendment seeks to finish what previous amendments started by stripping away the ambiguity that has chilled free speech in Nigeria.
Under the current framework, a journalist can be handcuffed and jailed for a story a politician dislikes. The new bill mandates that disputes over reputation, defamation, or alleged falsehood must be handled through civil lawsuits, meaning people can sue for damages, but they can no longer use the police to throw reporters in jail.
The amendment also removes discretionary powers from law enforcement agencies by providing that only a court of competent jurisdiction can determine whether a communication is false, harmful, or against public interest.
The amendment of Section 24 (a) Subsection (5) reads, “Where a dispute arising from a public interest publication relates to reputation, defamation, alleged falsehood, or cyberstalking, such dispute shall be addressed through civil remedies and, even where there is a demonstrable threat to life or physical safety, such dispute shall be addressed through civil remedies and not criminal prosecution.”
(b) Subsection (6):
“The determination of whether a communication constitutes false information, causes harm, or is against public interest under this Act shall be made exclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction, and shall not be left to the discretion of law enforcement agencies or private complainants.”
The bill introduces a crucial exemption in Section 27. Historically, whistleblowers who leaked confidential information to expose corruption could be prosecuted for unlawful access or handling confidential data. The new bill explicitly protects journalists and whistleblowers who handle such information in the course of public interest reporting, provided they follow professional standards.
The amendment reads, “Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, journalists and whistleblowers who receive or handle confidential information in the course of investigating and reporting on matters of public interest shall be exempt from prosecution under this Act, provided that such information is handled lawfully and in accordance with professional standards.”
For Section 38, under the current Act, law enforcement agencies have broad powers to access retained data and intercept communications. The new bill introduces a judicial gatekeeper.
It requires that any law enforcement agency must obtain judicial oversight before accessing or intercepting the data of journalists or whistleblowers. This ensures that the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality are met, preventing indiscriminate access into the private sources of investigative reporters.
The amendment reads, “Access to retained data shall only occur subject to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and the affected party shall be provided with notice where practicable to prevent abuse of legal processes.”
A general repeal clause is included to nullify any provisions of the principal Act that are inconsistent with the proposed amendments, while preserving all other sections not affected by the changes.
The bill further provides that the amended law will come into force upon receiving presidential assent.
If passed, the amendment is expected to bring Nigeria’s cybercrime regulatory framework closer to constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression and align it with international human rights standards.
Having scaled first reading, the bill is expected to proceed to second reading, where its general principles will be debated, before further scrutiny at the committee stage and possible passage by the National Assembly.
