The tightening of Nigeria’s civic space is no longer evident only in executive excesses; it is increasingly reflected in the posture of the courts, particularly in their handling of bail applications for alleged offences under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015.
Originally enacted to combat genuine acts of bullying, criminal intimidation, extortion and blackmail, Section 24 has, in practice, evolved into a convenient tool for policing speech that merely offends, criticizes, or embarrasses the powerful and politically exposed personalities.
Many prosecutions under this provision stem from expressions, which are often crude, sometimes intemperat; and which offences traditionally belong within the realm of civil defamation, or what earlier jurisprudence dismissed as harmless and “mere vulgar abuse.” Such threats are neither physically hurtful to the person nor do they threaten national security. They are, in most cases, negligible affronts to personal ego.
More concerning, however, is the judicial attitude towards cases under this law. Bail, a constitutional right, which is anchored on the presumption of innocence, is increasingly being treated, by the courts, as a privilege to be sparingly granted rather than a right to be protected.
Courts, in some instances, impose onerous conditions or allow judicial processes, that effectively punish defendants before trial. The implication is clear: the process itself becomes the punishment. This marks a troubling departure from the established legal principles and jurisprudence on defamation.
There is a pressing need for Nigerian courts to develop a jurisprudence that accommodates a higher threshold for speech in a democratic society. Historically, even offensive or insulting language; in the absence of incitement or tangible harm, had been tolerated as part of the rough texture of public discourse. In our African societies and cultural settings, expressive excesses, including satire, ridicule, and even insult, have long functioned as informal mechanisms for speaking truth to power.
By blurring the line between criminal conduct and civil wrongs, and by allowing the coercive process of pre-trial detention, the courts risk entrenching a culture of repression. The judicial detention of individuals for speech-related offences, coupled with the denial of reasonable bail, even when suspects are under administrative bail of law enforcement agencies, constrains civic participation and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
The implications extend beyond the legal sphere into the heart of democracy itself. A society in which citizens have to calculate the risk of losing their constitutionally guaranteed detention, before expressing dissent is one where accountability is diminished and power becomes insulated from scrutiny.
It is therefore imperative for the courts to reclaim their role as guardians of liberty and democratic order. This entails a more judicious scrutiny and management of cases brought under Section 24, a reaffirmation of the distinction between criminality and civil injury, and a principled commitment to protecting citizens’ rights.
Anything less risks converting the judiciary from a shield for the protection of citizens into an instrument of intimidation.
At stake in these so-called cyberbullying cases is not merely the fate of individual defendants, but the vitality of Nigeria’s civil space and the enduring promise of its constitutional democracy.
