SERAP drags FG, states to ECOWAS Court over ‘attacks on journalists, bloggers’

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has
dragged the Federal Government and state governments to ECOWAS
Court of Justice in Abuja over “the frequent and repressive
application of the Cybercrime Act to harass, intimidate,
arbitrarily arrest, detain, and unfairly prosecute anyone found
publishing views or facts perceived to be critical of the
government at the federal and state levels and government
officials.”

In the suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19 filed last week at the
ECOWAS Court, SERAP is arguing that: “The Federal Government and
several state governments and their agents have trampled on the
rights to freedom of expression and information of bloggers,
journalists, activists, and social media users through the
repressive use and implementation of the vaguely worded provisions
of the Cybercrime Act.”

The suit filed on SERAP’s behalf by its Solicitor Femi Falana,
SAN states: “The fundamental question for the court is whether the
federal and state governments, by using and applying the Cybercrime
Act and other similar laws on cyberstalking and sedition to
prosecute journalists, bloggers and activists over perceived
critical views, violate the rights to freedom of expression and
access to information. SERAP submits that, under international
freedom of expression jurisprudence, the answer is YES.”

The suit read in part: “The idea of a democracy is that the
people are encouraged to express their criticisms, even their
wrong-headed criticisms, of elected government officials, in the
expectation that this process will improve the process of
government. In circumstances of public debate concerning public
figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value
placed by legal principles and jurisprudence upon uninhibited
expression is particularly high.”

“The systematic and persistent use of the Cybercrime Act and
other similar laws on alleged cyberstalking to prosecute and
imprison journalists, bloggers and activists for their criticism of
public officials runs afoul of freedom of expression principles,
namely: that criminal prosecutions against journalists and bloggers
is never an appropriate remedy for alleged defamation of government
officials, and that news reporting about government officials are
matters of public interest, which should be accorded heightened
protection.”

“Sanctions for defamation should not be so large as to exert a
chilling effect on freedom of opinion, expression and media
freedom; penal sanctions, in particular imprisonment, should never
be applied. This implies a free press and other media able to
comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to
inform public opinion. The public also has a corresponding right to
receive output.”

“Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act which provides for the offence
of cyberstalking has been severally used and applied by the
Defendant and its agents and several state governments across the
country in molesting, intimidating, harassing and witch-hunting
anyone found publishing views or facts deemed critical of
government and/or government officials.”

“The vaguely worded offence of cyberstalking as stated in the
Cybercrime Act is accorded a wide interpretation that extends to
factual and true reports by activists, journalists, social media
users and bloggers, thereby leaving a chilling effect on the rights
to freedom of expression and information and media freedom and on
citizens’ participation in the fight against corruption.”

“The abusive and repressive use of the vaguely worded provisions
of the Cybercrime Act to stifle and muzzle perceived critics,
journalists, bloggers and other media practitioners is an affront
and it is dangerous to the rule of law and protection of the human
rights of people.”

“Stories published online have been deemed ‘offensive’,
‘obstructive’, ‘insulting’ or ‘annoying’ with actionable
consequence under section 24 of the Act even when the stories are
true, correct and factual. Some stories published through
traditional media outlets (print and electronic) that were never
sanctioned by the government have been sanctioned by the same
government upon being republished through online platforms.”

“SERAP chronologically highlights in this suit some of the
high-profile cases of harassment, intimidation, arrest, unlawful
detention, prosecution and imprisonment of journalists, bloggers,
and activists for alleged cyberstalking.”

SERAP is seeking the following reliefs:

1.A DECLARATION that the actions of the Defendants and its
agents and several states of Nigeria in arbitrarily enforcing the
provisions of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act
2015 particularly its section 24 to harass, intimidate, arrest,
detain, prosecute and imprison journalists, bloggers, and social
media users, violate the rights to freedom of expression,
information, opinion and privacy and media freedom, guaranteed
under Articles 6,8,9 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights; Articles 7,9,17 and 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state
party

2. A DECLARATION that the provisions of the Cybercrime
(Prohibition Prevention, etc) Act 2015 are entirely inconsistent
and incompatible with international human rights standards and
infringe on the rights to the freedom of expression, information
and opinion guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights

3. A DECLARATION that the continuing use and application by the
Defendant and its agents and several states in Nigeria of the
Cybercrime is illegal and unlawful, as it amounts to breaches of
obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights to
freedom of expression and information and media freedom

4. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately repeal and/or
amend the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 in
line with Nigerian obligations under international human rights
law

5. AN ORDER directing the Defendant and/or its agents and
several states of Nigeria to provide effective remedies and
reparation, including adequate compensation, restitution,
satisfaction or guarantees of non-repetition that the Honourable
Court may deem fit to grant to human rights defenders, activists
bloggers, journalists and other online and off-line media
practitioners that have been harassed, intimidated, unlawfully
arrested, detained, and unfairly prosecuted by the Defendant

6. SUCH FURTHER orders the Honorable Court may deem fit to make
in the circumstances of this suit.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.