Across the years in Nigeria journalists have faced a sustained, accelerating campaign of harassment, arrests and intimidation, a trend that threatens both the safety of reporters and the public’s right to know. What began as episodic arrests tied to single investigations has hardened into a predictable playbook: critical reporting is labelled a threat to national security, the Cybercrimes Act and related provisions is deployed to criminalize digital speech, and law-enforcement practices prolonged detention without prompt court appearances, restricted access to lawyers, and aggressive surveillance make investigative work riskier by the day. I hope to explain the legal and political tools being used, and show what this means for Nigeria’s civic space.
From single arrests to a pattern of legal harassment
High-profile detentions in 2024 including the disappearance and later detention of investigative reporter Daniel Ojukwu in May 2024 after a story about alleged corruption sparked widespread alarm and helped expose a broader pattern: the use of cybercrime and other criminal statutes as catch-alls for critical journalism. Ojukwu’s case highlighted common features of recent arrests: lengthy periods in custody before charge or access to counsel, apparent coordination with state cybercrime units, and public messaging that frames reporting as a law-and-order problem rather than a press freedom issue.
International monitoring groups document this is not an isolated phenomenon. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have catalogued dozens of prosecutions and arrests of journalists under the Cybercrimes Act and related provisions with at least 25 prosecutions since the law’s 2015 enactment and continued arrests even after an amendment process in 2024. These counts include journalists detained, charged, or harassed for reporting or for social-media commentary about public officials.
The Cybercrimes Act: amended but still weaponized
The Cybercrimes Act (2015) and its implementing regulations were originally framed as tools to fight online fraud and serious cyber threats. But for years civil-society groups warned that broad language and heavy criminal penalties made the law vulnerable to abuse against speech. The 2024 amendment removed a few of the most obviously overbroad clauses but legal reform has not ended arrests. Journalists continue to be detained under cybercrime allegations, often tied to reporting that embarrasses officials or exposes alleged corruption. That continued use has prompted calls from national advocacy groups and legal observers to either substantially revise or stop using the law against reporters.
Concretely, even where statutory language was adjusted, enforcement practice has lagged. Human rights monitors report arrests and detentions in 2024 and 2025 that invoke cybercrime techniques such as seizure of devices, forensic examinations, and use of the National Cybercrime Centre to justify arrests, showing that policing tactics can be just as important as the letter of the law.
National security as a rhetorical and legal shield
A second trend is the increasing invocation of national security or public order to justify suppression of investigative reporting. Security framing functions on two levels: it gives authorities a public justification for restrictive measures such as surveillance, gagging orders, and arrests; and it narrows debate by stigmatizing criticism as potentially destabilizing. International and local press freedom groups say invoking national security in loosely defined ways allows authorities to bypass protections and to treat journalists like suspects rather than independent actors doing public-interest work. The effect is chilling self-censorship, risk-averse editors, and fewer outlets willing to pursue sensitive investigations.
Who is affected and how?
The victims range from investigative reporters and editors to bloggers and freelancers whose work is published on social platforms. Cases since 2023 show a cross-section: investigative exposes about corruption, reporting on security force abuses, and even energetic social-media commentary about politicians have resulted in arrests or harassment. Civil-society networks report equipment seizures, online account takedowns, and surveillance that impede reporting, not only posing immediate personal risk but also operational harm to newsrooms.
Beyond detainees, the professional community faces indirect costs including advertisers distancing themselves from outlets perceived as politically risky, legal bills, and the psychological toll on journalists and their families. The International Press Institute, press guilds and human-rights organizations have repeatedly urged government restraint and adherence to due process.
The numbers that matter
At least 25 journalists have faced prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act since 2015, according to CPJ and related reporting, with prosecutions continuing through 2024 and into 2025.
Human rights organizations documented multiple detentions in 2024, such as the May 2024 detention of Daniel Ojukwu, and continued arrests into 2025 even after the 2024 amendment to the Act.
These figures understate wider pressure tactics such as equipment seizure and informal intimidation, which are harder to quantify but widely reported by local outlets and press-freedom monitors.
Legal and civic pushback
Civil society, legal advocates and international NGOs have not remained silent. Groups such as SERAP, the Nigeria Guild of Editors, Amnesty International and international press watchdogs have publicly condemned arrests and called for immediate releases, judicial oversight, and repeal or meaningful reform of laws used to criminalize reporting. There have also been successful legal pushes in some cases including bail grants, court interventions, and out-of-court settlements, but these are reactive remedies that do not prevent the initial chilling arrest.
What this means for Nigeria’s democracy
A free press is a corrective mechanism: it exposes corruption, holds officials accountable, and informs citizens. When journalists are routinely treated as potential cybercriminals or national-security threats, that corrective mechanism weakens. The immediate consequence is fewer investigations and more self-censorship; the longer-term effect is diminished public oversight, weakening institutions, and an emboldened political class with fewer checks.
If patterns from 2023 to 2025 persist, Nigeria faces a paradox: democratic institutions remain formally intact, but the civic space that sustains accountable governance is eroding. International rankings and press freedom indices have already reflected deterioration; what concerns local advocates is not only reputation but the lived reality for communities who rely on watchdog reporting.
Recommendations immediate and structural
- Stop using the Cybercrimes Act to criminalize legitimate journalism. Enforcement agencies should adopt clear internal guidelines prohibiting arrests of journalists for lawful reporting and commentary. Legislative reform must be followed by enforcement reforms and accountability measures.
- Protect due process and access to counsel. Detained journalists must be charged or released within statutory timelines and granted prompt access to lawyers and family; failures should trigger independent investigation.
- Limit the national security catch-all. Authorities should narrowly define legitimate national-security exceptions and subject claims to judicial review so that public-interest journalism is not folded into security operations.
- Support independent legal and safety mechanisms for journalists. Fund legal defense, digital security training, and rapid-response hotlines so journalists and small outlets can weather litigation and harassment.
Conclusion
During this period Nigeria has seen a worrying normalization of legal harassment and detention of journalists, often justified by cybercrime statutes or broad national-security language. The law’s amendment in 2024 was a step, but enforcement practice has continued to threaten independent reporting. Reversing this trend will require not only legal fixes but changes in policing culture, stronger judicial safeguards, and sustained civic pressure. Without those, the essential work of journalism shining light on public life will be diminished, and Nigerian citizens will be the poorer for it.
