In a social media exchange that has sparked widespread discussion, Prince Olumuyiwa Adejobi, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Nigerian Police Force, took to his X handle to address the growing prevalence of online hostility. He stated:
“Raining direct curses on someone online is cyberbullying, not expression of freedom or criticism. And cyberbullying, which is even different from defamation, is a criminal offence and punishable. Be guided.”
This statement, which equates curses to cyberbullying and labels it a criminal offense, drew swift criticism from human rights lawyer and activist, Inibehe Effiong. In his response, Effiong described the statement as legally unsound and challenged the PRO’s interpretation of the law.
Effiong dismissed Adejobi’s remarks as “ignorance of the law raised to power 1000.” He emphasized that cursing someone does not constitute a criminal offense under Nigerian law and urged the PRO to cite any statute that supports his claim. Effiong referenced Section 36 (12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which states:
“For an act or omission to be termed a crime, it must be expressly and specifically defined as such under a written law.”
The lawyer further argued that curses, often based on superstition or spiritual beliefs, do not carry legal weight. For example, phrases like “it shall not be well with you” may be seen as negative prayers rather than threats to life or property. Effiong also noted that the Nigerian legal system does not concern itself with trifling matters or supernatural claims.
Effiong’s response highlights several important legal principles. Firstly, freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution, includes the right to express opinions, even if they are critical or harsh. While cyberbullying laws exist to protect individuals from harassment, they are not meant to criminalize all forms of online expression.
Effiong also pointed out that the Cybercrimes Act, often cited in such cases, has been amended. The contentious provisions of Section 24, which were previously criticized for enabling the suppression of dissent, have since been repealed.
The debate underscores a broader issue: the balance between protecting individuals from genuine harm online and safeguarding freedom of expression. Legal scholars argue that while cyberbullying involving threats, harassment, or defamation may warrant legal action, the law must avoid overreach.
The use of curses, though offensive to some, generally falls into a grey area. Without a clear and specific legal definition, categorizing such acts as crimes risks setting a dangerous precedent for arbitrary enforcement.
Furthermore, Effiong’s critique raises concerns about the understanding and application of the law by public officials. His statement, “This Force PRO has a history of inventing imaginary offences from his head,” reflects frustrations with law enforcement’s interpretation of statutory provisions.
This exchange between Prince Olumuyiwa Adejobi and Inibehe Effiong has reignited discussions about the role of law enforcement in interpreting and enforcing online conduct laws. As Nigeria continues to navigate the complexities of regulating online behavior, clarity and adherence to constitutional principles remain critical.
Readers are encouraged to consider the broader implications of this debate and to engage with legal professionals for a deeper understanding of their rights and obligations online.
For further information, see Section 36 (12) of the Nigerian Constitution and the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act.
