Back to articles
Technology Law
CONTENT MODERATIONAND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN NIGERIA’S DIGITAL SPACE
This article explores the tension between digital free expression and government regulation in Nigeria, focusing heavily on the flaws of Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. While online platforms have amplified civic engagement and political accountability, the government uses overly broad and vague criminal provisions punishing speech deemed "annoying" or "grossly offensive" to selectively target critics and journalists, violating rule-of-law principles. Although maintaining national security and public order is a legitimate constitutional objective, these broad criminal sanctions fail international and regional legal standards of necessity and proportionality, as established by Nigerian courts and the ECOWAS Court. To resolve this, the author advocates for comprehensive legal reforms, including redrafting the Cybercrimes Act with precise definitions, creating an independent oversight tribunal, and enforcing law enforcement transparency to protect both public safety and a vibrant digital democracy.
Zion Yargata Kigun
16 Sept 2026
4 min read
Digital communication has transformed how Nigerians engage in public life. Social media and online platforms now serve as central spaces for political accountability, civic engagement, and social commentary, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and enabling real-time discourse. This shift has empowered citizens to influence opinion and hold leaders to account, but it has also generated regulatory anxiety over misinformation, harassment, and threats to national security.
The constitutional framework is clear. Section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information, and this extends to digital spaces. However, Section 45(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 allows restrictions that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for defence, public order, morality, and national security. The issue is therefore not whether regulation is allowed, but whether existing laws meet standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Nigeria's primary tool is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. Rather than precisely defining harmful speech, the Act uses broad criminal provisions. Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 is central: it criminalizes messages that are "grossly offensive," "false," or likely to cause "annoyance" or public disturbance. The lack of clear definitions gives enforcement agencies wide discretion. In practice, journalists, activists, and ordinary users have been arrested, often following political criticism. This pattern suggests selective application and undermines trust.
Vague language also violates rule-of-law principles. Citizens cannot predict what speech is prohibited, creating a chilling effect on political critique and commentary. Under Section 45(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, such uncertainty weakens the claim that restrictions are reasonably justifiable.
Proponents argue regulation is necessary given Nigeria's ethnic fragility and history of violence linked to inflammatory online rhetoric. Protecting life and public order is a legitimate aim under Sections 14(2)(b) and 45(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Yet legitimacy alone is insufficient. A proportionality assessment shows problems. First, suitability is weak: criminalizing "annoying" or "false" speech does not directly target incitement and ignores intent and imminence. Second, necessity is not met: less restrictive options like civil fines, takedowns, and rights of reply exist, and criminal sanctions should be reserved for intentional incitement. Third, procedural safeguards are lacking, with arrests often occurring without prior judicial review. Finally, the balancing stage tips against the law: the damage to free expression and accountability outweighs speculative security gains.
Judicial and regional authority supports reform. The Supreme Court in Director of State Security Service v Olisa Agbakoba, required that rights limitations be necessary and proportionate. The Court of Appeal in Attorney-General of Lagos State v Eko Hotel, demanded specificity and fairness. Most directly, the ECOWAS Court in Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative v Federal Republic of Nigeria, held Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 violated free expression due to vagueness and ordered amendment.
Nigeria is also bound by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, both of which require that any limitation on expression be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Reform should combine substantive and institutional changes. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 must be redrafted with precise standards and intent thresholds. An independent digital speech oversight tribunal with judges, experts, and civil society should review enforcement. Law enforcement should publish annual transparency reports on arrests, prosecutions, and takedowns.
In conclusion, Nigeria must regulate online harms without eroding constitutional rights. A framework based on civil remedies, clear legal standards, judicial oversight, independence, and transparency best protects both public order and a vibrant digital democracy.
---
1. A U Nwafor, 'Digital Governance and Political Participation in Nigeria' (2022) 15 Journal of African Media Studies 120.
2. Director of State Security Service v Olisa Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt 595) 314 (SC).
3. Attorney-General of Lagos State v Eko Akete (2018) LPELR-46655 (CA).
4. Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/JUD/22/18, 2019).
MORE READING