ISSUES IN INTERNET REGULATION IN NIGERIA: THE NEED TO PROMULGATE

A BEFITTING LEGISLATION1

Introduction

The internet has a wide range of benefits and, through its attendant opportunities, is empowering
people in a variety of ways. For example, people are able to maintain social network and can access
more information than ever before. Some of the foremost developments of the cyberspace is the
social media, news websites, online supermarket and stores, online booking stores, distant learning
among others. On the other side of the coin, the truth is that across the country, lot of users have
made the internet a haunt where evil intentions can be executed under the guise of anonymity. To
say the least, as much as many lives have been made by meeting great resources via the internet;
many have met their waterloo by their encounters with evil perpetrators going about their
deleterious activities. The number of internet users continue to increase as the days go by.2

Despite all these, there are no sufficient laws to address the situations meticulously. It is not argued
that a single legislation can sufficiently regulate all the dynamics of the internet. However, there
can be a quantum leap in the journey towards a desired future if specific spheres of the cyberspace
space are largely dealt with by succinct provisions on the pages of our laws. Certain attempts to
propose some bill like the recent Prohibition of Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill and the
Digital Rights and Freedom Bill, both aimed at ameliorating the legal framework of the
cyberspace, suffered certain procedural setbacks due to either technicalities or extremism
attracting vehement oppositions from the public. Against the backdrop of the boisterous ever-
increasing population of internet users in Nigeria and the largely unqualified operations scattered
across the cyberspace, it is the view of the writers that it is time the law came in to address the
porosity and put in place a befitting legal framework.

History of Internet Regulation in Nigeria

Before the blossoming of the internet in the 20th century, Information and Communication
Technology had diverse spheres. The parliament, at different times had enacted different

1
Feranmi Adeoye Esq, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Abuja.
2
Adesoji B.S, ‘Nigeria ranks 7th country with highest number of internet users in the world’ (July 16, 2019)
Available on: https://nairametrics.com/2019/07/16/nigeria-ranks-7th-country-with-highest-number-of-internet-users-
in-the-world. Accessed on February 17, 2020.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

legislations to regulate the use of information and communication technology. The relevant
legislations include the Wireless Telegraphy Act first enacted in 1961 and it seeks to regulate the
licensing, location and operation of telegraphy services in Nigeria;3 the Nigerian Communications
Act was enacted in 2003 to regulate the Nigerian communication industry and the Act established
the Nigerian Communication Commission to grant license to telecommunications service
providers; the National Broadcasting Commission Act also was enacted in 1992 to regulate
broadcasting activities; the National Film and Video Censors Board Act enacted in 1993
established the National Censors Board as a regulatory body to regulate the films and video
industry in Nigeria. The Board is empowered by law to censor, approve and classify all films and
videos whether imported or produced locally.4

Also, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Act established the
National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) and the primary functions of
the NITDA under the law include creating a framework for the planning, research, development,
standardization, application, coordination, monitoring, evaluation and regulation of information
technology practices, activities and systems in Nigeria among others.5

It is important to state here that there are also some applicable laws with broader scope like the
Criminal Code Act, Advanced Fee Fraud Act among others which form the basis for the
prosecution of criminal offences including those committed through instrumentality of
Information Technology.

However, since the last century, in order to meet up with consequential changes in human activities
effectuated by the emergence of the various evils perpetrated through the internet, the need to
create a specific legal framework became imperative. Some of the attempts made include the 1995
draft legislation of the Electronic Crimes, Telecommunications and Postal Offences Decree;
Computer Security and Infrastructure Bill of 2005, the 2008 Electronic Provisions Bill, the 2011
Cyber Security Bill, the Electronic Transfer of Funds Crime Bill of 2011 and the Criminal Code

3
Obutte P.C. ‘ICT Laws in Nigeria: planning and regulating a societal journey into the future’ PER [online]. 2014,
vol.17, n.1 [cited 2020-02-17], . Available on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316415440_ICT_Laws_in_Nigeria_Planning_and_Regulating_a_Societal
_Journey_into_the_Future. Accessed on February 17, 2020.
4
Ibid., 422
5
National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Act. Section 6

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

Amendment for Offences Relating to Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes of 2011 among others.6
It has been said that the lack of political will and government’s inaptitude to “stay committed to
the soci0-legal growth” of the Nigerian Citizenry7 led to the various drafts dying on arrival.8 This
may not be true from all sides as there are other factors that cumulatively results in the dearth of
regulatory legislations.

Some more specific legislations include the Cybercrime Act successfully enacted in 2015 which
generally deals with computer operations, cyber security and criminalization of computer related
offences. Another welcome development worthy of note in the legal jurisprudence is the
introduction of Computer and Electronically Generated Evidence in the Evidence Act unlike the
awkward situation operational before 2011.

Despite many legislative attempts to penetrate the cyberspace holistically, reiterating the rights of
internet users and qualifying their operations, unfortunately, there is a dearth of robust laws
enacted to meticulously address the porosity of operations on the internet, creating an authoritative
institution which power will not be victim of ambiguity or conflict with other existing institutions.
What has been coming to spotlight are pieces of bills proposed before the parliament either
excessively punishing the members of the internet community by stipulating unwarranted
sanctions and conferring too much power or postulating abstract rights to individuals or technically
tilting the aroma of the law in favour of the government agencies which are known for unqualified
abuse of power. Others, in operation, have not carefully addressed the state of things as needed at
the moment.

With respect to institutions regulating the use of Information and Communication Technology in
Nigeria, the Nigeria Communications Commission (NCC) and the National Information
Technology Development Agency (NITDA) have been at the forefront. Other institutions like the
National Broadcasting Commission are also playing their roles, with little or no effect on the
regulation of the internet. For example, the NITDA recently released the Nigerian Data Protection
Regulation (NDPR) in January 2019 which was to serve as a broad framework for safeguarding

6
Anthony L.V et al “Internet Censorship and Freedom of Expression in Nigeria” (2017)
International Journal of Media, Journalism and Mass Communications (IJMJMC) Vol 3(2) p 27.
7
Tomiwa I. “The Nigerian Cybercrimes Act 2015: Is it uhuru yet?” (2016). Available on
http://www.orderpaper.ng/nigerian-cybercrimes-act-2015-uhuru-yet/ Accessed on February 25, 2020.
8
Vareba A., et al “Internet Censorship and Freedom of Expression in Nigeria” (2017)
International Journal of Media, Journalism and Mass Communications (IJMJMC) Vol 3. p 27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

the rights of persons to data privacy.9 Fortunately, this regulation10 has been very instrumental in
that it has led to organizations putting in place data protection policies.

Besides, the NCC recently introduced the controversial Internet Code of Practice for the Telecom
Industry in order to ensure appropriate conduct of Telecommunication companies in the
cyberspace. Somehow, the lack of a clear-cut regulatory framework to draw the line between the
powers of the two agencies effectuated the writing of an article juxtaposing the power of the NCC,
the letters and spirit of the Internet Code of Practice for the Telecom Industry and the likelihood
of making the telecommunication companies to violate the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation
previously made by the NITDA. For example, it was opined that the NCC’s directive to
telecommunication companies to store and make available recordings of communications carried
out over their network is antithetical to the provisions of the NITDA’s NDPR.11 The NITDA
counter-reacted by insisting that the NCC’s regulation is never in conflict with Nigerian Data
Protection Regulation and that the NCC’s Directive was predicated on legitimacy and public
interest.

The foregoing is just an example of the uncertainty that bedevils the regulation of the internet in
Nigeria: difficulty in drawing the line defining the boundaries of the powers of the existing
agencies with respect to making regulations to administer sanity on the cyberspace. Meanwhile,
there are still in continuity various moves towards the promulgation of a befitting legislation that
will take a holistic approach in the regulation of the Nigerian cyberspace, entrenching the digital
rights of the people and providing the necessary specifics of the attendant restrictions and
qualifications to address the execution of wrongful activities on the internet and
contemporaneously dealing with the issue of institutional framework.

Incidences of Internet Abuse

While admitting the foregoing efforts, it is argued that there is still a lot yet undone in the attempt
to regulate the cyberspace. Websites are created in great numbers daily. People’s rights to create

9
Data privacy is fast becoming one of the major concern of governments and regulatory agencies across the world.
10
Described as a” just and equitable legal regulatory framework on data protection and which is in tune with best
practice.” Awosanya Y., ‘NITDA is on a mission to safeguard the data privacy rights of Nigerians. Available on:
https://techpoint.africa/2019/03/21/nitda-ndpr-data-privacy/
11
Elebeke E., NCC Regulation Not in Conflict with Nigeria Data Protection Regulation-NITDA., (2019, October
22) Vanguard Newspaper. Available online at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/10/ncc-regulation-not-in-
conflict-with-nigeria-data-protection-regulation-nitda/ Accessed on February 21, 2020.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

blogs, forums, websites are being exploited without restrictions. Good! Supposedly in a perfect
World of Form as postulated by Plato, the situation should be sublime since the right to freedom
of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is like the sunrays
always desiring a platform to shine. The emergence of platforms like e-commerce, e-banking etc
has made it possible to transact with people across the world from the comforts of one’s cozy bed
locked up in a remote part of the earth. Blogs are massively created but their contents are not
regulated. While, many are necessary for human development, it is pathetic that a great number of
unscrupulous contents are being released every day to the general public, always at the receiving
end, for various reasons. Such reason may include to humiliate people, get quick wealth, misinform
the public, damage another person’s reputation, among many other reasons.

Some of the various ills carried out on the internet may be executed by an individual or a group of
people against other persons, properties or the government.12 No doubt, the recurrence of
malignant happenings pervading the internet space may be attributed to the failure of the state to
provide a sound regulatory legal framework to stem the tide of unscrupulous happenings of the
internet without trampling on the constitutional rights of internet users. Examples of the nefarious
acts conducted on the internet includes identity theft, hacking, cyberbullying,13 cyberstalking,
fraud, dissemination of fake news, hate speeches, violent images, spam and malwares.

The Nigerian cyberspace is filled with lots of these junks. Just few days ago, the nude photo of a
member of the Nigerian Senate, after a secret rendezvous, went viral on the internet. 14 Questions
have been asked as to who was behind the act and what purpose such person(s) wanted to achieve?
What about the Jos porn scandal resulting to the suicide of a woman and the depression of many
girls before the intervention of the International Federation of Women Lawyers? A selfish young
man decided to take some girls and women to a hotel in Jos to shoot a video of their nakedness,

12
Ogunlere S. Cyber Crimes and Cyber Laws in Nigeria,(2013) The International Journal Of Engineering And
Science (IJES) Vol. 2, Issue 4, Pages 19-25 Available online on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310625878_Cyber_Crimes_and_Cyber_Laws_in_Nigeria Accessed on the
February 20, 2020.
13
This can be done through social exclusion, tagging without permission, flaming which is the practice of posting
derogatory comments about another person, Sext reposting, Impersonation and Identity Theft. See 5 Types of
Internet Abuse Used in Cyberbullying’ By Hartney E. (2020) Available on https://www.verywellmind.com/five-
types-of-internet-abuse-used-to-cyberbully-2228 Accessed on February 22, 2020.
14
See “Another Senator’s Nude Photo Goes Viral’ February 8, 2020. Available on www.independent.ng/another-
senators-nude-photo-goes-viral/ Accessed on February 26, 2020.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

taking advantage of their ignorance of the ubiquity of the internet and poverty and regrettably, he
went ahead to release the video to the world after two years.15

An average citizen may not appreciate the urgency when he has not fallen victim of any of the
many internet evils. Besides the examples given above, there are abundant samples of
dissemination of falsehood to destroy people’s reputation, and to manipulate people’s identity.
There are many other unfortunate incidences that are subject of discussions on the internet.

Censorship in Nigeria and other jurisdictions: Prospects and Challenges

The globe has been conferred with a new appellation by intelligentsias- a global village. This is
premised on the fact that the distance between the farthest places from the southern to the northern
hemisphere is just the distance between any person’s fingertip and the screen of an internet enabled
phone or keyboard of a computer system. Across the world, websites, blogs, particularly social
media companies play strategic roles in that they are used to communicate grievances, feelings,
opinions, information on the internet within seconds. This has led governments to propose
measures to regulate these platforms over harmful content, including ‘substantial’ fines and the
ability to block services that do not stick to the law.

A brief overview of certain jurisdiction may be necessary at this point. In the United Kingdom,
there is no gainsaying that presently, social media mainly rely on self-governance which means
that they determine what is acceptable or not and their usage policies.16 To avoid being victims of
prosecution and huge fines, social media sites claim to be working tirelessly to remove illegal
contents and prioritize the protection of users, especially children and vulnerable individuals and
carefully entrenching some terms in their polices such that where illegal contents such as ‘revenge
pornography’ in posted on a social media site, the person who posted such will be liable and not
the social media company.

15
See “Married Woman Paid N30k to act porn commits suicide” Available on https://lifestyle.thecable.ng/married-
woman-paid-n30k-to-act-porn-commits-suicide/ Accessed on February 26, 2020
16
Facebook currently has about 30,000 people around the world working on safety and security. Between October
and December 2019, Facebook stated that it removed 15.4 million pieces of violent content. See Social Media: How
can governmens regulate it? (2019) Available on https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47135058 Accessed on
February 25, 2020

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

German’s controversial tech law popularly known as “NetzDG” came in to effect on January 1
2018 and it applied to companies with more than two million users in the country. Under the law,
online platforms face the ugly payment of fines up to €50m if they hesitate to remove ‘obviously
illegal’ hate speech and other related posts within 24 hours of receiving the notification, individual
may be fined up to €5m. The country’s Federal Ministry of Justice disclosed to BBC that, in the
first year after the law became operational, there was about 714 complaints of breach of the law
which was below the 25,000 complaints a year it had been expecting.17 Should we conclude that
the severity of the fine was effective for Germany or the mere fact that a law was enacted to check
the situation drove sense into the minds of the marauders?

Interestingly, in Australia, the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act has provision for
criminal penalties for social media companies or even jail sentences up to three years for tech
executive or fines up 10% of a company’s global turnover when a breach occurs.18 Another law in
operation is the Enhancing Online Safety Act which created an eSafety Commissioner having
power to demand that social media companies remove harassing or abusive posts or issue huge
fines for posting the content.19

The ruggedness of country like China is worth discussing under this head. Certain websites like
Twitter, Google and WhatsApp are blocked in China. The country has platforms that provides
alternative services. The government also successfully prevents access to virtual private networks
used to bypass the restrictions. There is a Cyberspace Administration of China actively regulating
the cyberspace cleaning up illegalities in the air and closing down websites found to be used for
illegal purposes. There are also thousands of cyber-police monitoring social media platforms and
subjecting messages to scrutiny in determining their political sensitivity. Certain keywords are
regarded as censored and new words regarded as sensitive are added regularly to the censored
words resulting to either their temporal ban or being filtered out from social platforms. Though it
may be argued that there is a flavour of communism in the approach, the effectiveness of the
censorship shows there is something to be borrowed from the country’s censorship system.

17
Ibid
18
Ibid
19
Ibid

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

In Nigeria, the situation is completely different, while trying to apply the broader laws, it is either
the government is bouncing heavily on individuals whose online activities are suspiciously against
their political interest or that internet users keep gamboling in the unkept cyber-jungle. The state
of lawlessness cannot continue, the law should come as an instrument of social engineering. Such
that, individuals’ digital rights being guaranteed, wrongdoers also should receive the token of their
punishment meted out to them.

Drawing the line between freedom of speech and internet censorship may be very difficult
considering the bulldozer-approaches that have been employed by the governments of many
African countries in recent times. For example, the government has used draconian approaches
such as restriction to connectivity (internet shutdown), blocking and removal of online contents.
During the 2015, the National Communications Commission (NCC) shut down an SMS short code
used by the All Progressive Congress – the then opposition party – to fundraise.20 Besides,
Nigerian government has often taken muscled measures against bloggers and other citizen
journalists’ communications on the Net. Many of those unquestioned acts of censorship have most
often targeted anti-government bloggers and citizen journalists.21

An Overview of the Prohibition of the Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill

People need to be enlightened that hate speech regulation is not specifically the same with social
media and internet regulation. This sole factor of not clearly differentiating the two bills which
are already subjects of legislative process at the Senate arm of the National Assembly encouraged
the public unrepentant resistance of the Protection from Internet Falsehoods and Manipulations
(and For Related Matters) Bill (PIFM) immediately it was presented to the Senate and the
introduction announced to the public. The writer does not completely welcome the bill anyway but
the philosophical push behind its introduction is strongly believed to be premised on attendant
difficulties bedeviling the Nigerian cyberspace.

The PIFM bill popularly known as the ‘anti-social media bill’ was sponsored by Senator
Mohammed Sani Musa, who vehemently reputed the allegations that the bill was pari material

20
See Abubakar I., How did internet shutdown become common trend in Africa? Available on
https://technext.ng/2019/02/06/how-did-internet-shutdown-become-common-trend-africa/ Accessed on February 28,
2020
21
Ibid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

with the provisions of the Singaporean Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations (and
For Related Matters) Act passed into law early last year. Specifically, the bill covers individuals,
organizations, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), technology companies, the Nigerian
Communications Commission (NCC) among others.

The first part of the bill provides for its aims, objectives and application. It is targeted at stemming
the tide of the spread of false statements conveyed via the internet to one or more end-users by
criminalizing the acts and providing for corresponding punishments in the form of fine and
imprisonments. The law enforcement agency (police) is authorized to order the removal or
corrections of false statements in violation of the law and confers on the NCC the right of
censorship.

Part two categorically prohibits the transmission of false statement of false statements of fact in
Nigeria and defines the various statements (Declaration) that is tantamount to the offence and
provides that a declaration is transmitted if it is disseminated via the internet, MMS or SMS. It
also prohibits other offences like making or altering bots for transmission or enabling another’s
transmission of false statements of fact with a penalty of three years imprisonment or a fine not
exceeding N200,000 or both. Under the bill, it is also an offence to solicit, receive, or agree to
receive any financial or material benefit as inducement or reward to provide services for
transmission of false declaration of fact. When the foregoing is breached by a individual, he is to
pay, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding N150,000 or 2 years imprisonment or both. If not an
individual, the penalty must not exceed N500,000.

The law also provides for a penalty for transmitting false declarations i.e. making it available to
one or more end users. Individuals who commits the offence are to pay, upon conviction, a fine
not exceeding N300,000 or 3 years imprisonment or both. For non-individual, the fine is not
exceeding N10million. The same penalties exist where an inauthentic account or robot is used to
accelerate such transmission.22 However, an internet intermediary service; a tele transmission
service; a service providing public internet access; a computing resource service (service that
provides the use of any computer hardware or software to enhance the processing capability or
storage capacity of a computer) are exempted under this part.

22
See Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill Summary. Available at https://placng.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/Protection-from-Internet-Falsehood-Bill-Summary.pdf

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

Under the third part of the bill, there are provisions for correctional regulation and stop
transmission regulation to be issued by a law enforcement department (referred to as the Police)
after considering public interest, where a false declaration of fact has been or is being transmitted
in Nigeria. Any person who refuses to comply with the orders made under part three is liable to be
punished accordingly.

The Police may issue an access blocking order directing the Nigerian Communications
Commission (NCC) to order an internet service provider(ISP) to disable access by end-users in
Nigeria to an online location where a false declaration is being transmitted particularly in a
situation where there has been failure by a person to comply with a regulation to correct or stop
the transmission.

Part four provides for regulations for internet intermediaries and providers of mass media services.
Internet intermediary include social network services, search engines services, content aggregation
services, internet-based messaging services; and video-sharing services. Under this part, any law
enforcement agency who feels that it is in public interest, to issue the relevant regulations to
internet intermediaries, whose platform has been used to spread false statements. The regulations
may be a targeted correction regulation,23 a disabling regulation,24 or a general correction
regulation.25

Despite the fact that a school of thought celebrated the introduction of the bill, from another end
there are various reasons postulated as arguments against the passage of the bill by media groups
and human rights organizations. The arguments are considered below.

It is believed that the government wants to impose a law which will bring all anti-government
speeches under scrutiny. Besides the unwarranted classification of the wrongful acts under the
criminal jurisprudence, the bizarrely exorbitant fines of 300,000 and ten million naira for
individuals and corporate organizations respectively have also been subjects of ceaseless
controversies.

23
A Correction Notice issued through their service to all end-users who accessed the particular statement or subject
material via their service.
24
It requires that the internet intermediary disables end-users’ access to the content
25
This is directed to a prescribed internet intermediary to transmit a correction notice via its intermediary internet
service.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

Furthermore, it is argued that certain technicalities fault some of the sections of the bill.
Particularly part three to five of the bill.

With respect to enforcement agencies, under the bill, various offences are created and certain duties
imposed. And, as of necessity, in many instances, the bill recognizes the power of a ‘law
enforcement department’ to execute certain actions. For example, section 6 provides for the power
of the department to issue some regulations under the bill. However, section 35 which is the
interpretation section defines ‘law enforcement department’ to mean the Police. It is opined that
the Police is not in the best position to be conferred with such powers. Besides the many abuse of
powers and the lack of expertise regularly displayed in technical crimes, this area has to be dealt
with meticulously if the fundamental rights of the Nigerian populace will not be trampled upon.
Instead, a special department can be created under the Nigerian Communication Commission
(NCC) or National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) who will engage the
necessary expertise in the part of the subject matter which the bill intends to cover.

Furthermore, the bill goes ahead to over-criminalize many wrongful online actions
notwithstanding the failure of many of our criminal laws to deter marauders from polluting the
society. Furthermore, for example, section 3 of the bill provides for situations where online
transmission of false statements of fact defamation constitutes an offence. Some of the situations
include where the transmission is likely to merely influence the outcome of an election to any
office in a general election. It is inexplicable why a criminal offence should be premised on such
a very ambiguous expression without truncating the rights of the citizens to air their opinions and
observations before elections, putting into consideration the plethora of things that happens at the
political background. The law may rather reflect the nature and gravity of the consequences of
such transmission. For example, where such transmission results in grievous criminal offences
under the extant law, then the transmission may as of necessity attract a criminal nature. Some
offences do not need to be criminalized. For example, the issue of defamation may conveniently
be place under the civil law of tort as opposed to criminalizing it. Through this devise, there will
be reduction in the involvement of the state in situations where the wrong is interpersonal.

Another issue is seen in Section 23 which empowers the department to direct the NCC to order an
internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end users in Nigeria
to an online location where the subject matter is being transmitted. It is our humble opinion that

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

this power is vulnerable to abuse and misuse by the department. Besides, if the department does
not enjoy independence, it is worrisome that the government may employ the provision to
indiscriminately witch-hunt its political opponents and their online location. Before any access
blocking order may be made without trampling on the rights of internet users, such orders must be
made only after an independent body like the court has determined the necessity of the order after
the consideration of relevant facts and circumstances that warrant the making of such order.

Other issues include the huge fines and sanctions provided for in the bill, difficulties in
understanding certain terminologies in the bill from the perspective of an average internet user
who the law is meant for, among others.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Having critically examined the position of things and the gap in the legal jurisprudence, certain
recommendations are hereby postulated. it is suggested that a law be passed by the National
Assembly which will not only reiterate the digital rights of Nigerians but also clearly provide for
the qualifications or limitations to each of the rights. The philosophy behind the Prohibition of
Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill should be carefully blended with that of the Digital
Freedom and Rights Bill. A resultant project will be the drafting of a mélange, or a fair-mix of the
two bills which will not be unnecessarily subject to technicalities nor granting too much power to
the government but conferring sufficient authority to an independent body. The bill should reiterate
the digital rights of the people. Ideas can be taken from the Digital Freedom and Rights Bill which
was denied assent by the President in 2019. So, while the law reiterates and protects the digital
rights of the people, it should also clearly state the corresponding limitations, qualifications and
the attendant liabilities. The protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations bill should not
be thrown away, germane provisions which define some internet offences should be borrowed.
Created offence should be clear of obscurity to avoid victimization of internet users at the
discretion of government agencies.

It is also suggested that, a cyber-administrative body should be created. This idea can be borrowed
from the Chinese cyber-administration. We, however, how to sieve the communist element by
bringing the body under an indirect supervision of the court in form of concepts like judicial review
among others. The internet is wide enough to be regarded as a community which should have its
own body conferred with adequate power to perform regulatory and oversight functions across the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

country’s cyberspace. The body should be independent from political interference. It should have
the power to make rules and regulations with respect with anything that deals with the cyber-pace.
The agency should not in any way be related to the police since it should not be essentially a
criminal-law enforcement agency. The body should also have the power to take up petitions from
interested people. Also, the body will serve as a watch dog to internet intermediary services e.g.
social media platforms and ensure that they stick to its rules and regulations. As much as such
platforms should be mandated to engage in self-regulation, there should be rules on the standards
of policies desirable in Nigeria and such platforms must be made to comply. The body, however,
should have many of its enforcement powers subject to the order of the court so as to avoid
situations of abuse of powers or being utilized by the government to witch-hunt internet users from
any of the ends on the cyberspace.

Furthermore, a line should be drawn to separate true criminal offences for simple civil matters on
the internet. This should not be difficult. By default, all wrongs on the internet may be made a civil
wrong with the exceptions of those already criminalized or those that finally results in the
commission of criminal offences. It is advised that certain wrongs within the cyber space should
be lifted from the realms of criminality. Of course, there are acts that ordinarily amount to criminal
offences considering the existing laws in Nigeria, however, not every wrong act committed on the
internet should be criminalized. One of the reasons why there was public uproar against the social
media bill was the fact that extreme punishments were meted out on the created offences. The
deterrent effect of criminal punishment may not always work to preempt people from engaging in
wrongful acts. So, to speak, certain cyber-wrongs can be termed as civil wrongs and attendant civil
remedies should be employed in cases of breaches. A good example is the wrong of defamation.

In solving the dilemma of drawing a clear line in the determination of certain concepts like
falsehood, fake news among others. There are arguments against the provision of section 24 of the
Cybercrimes Act 2015 which has the appearance of an omnibus clause used by the government to
deal with any perceived inconsistent or rebellious actions oozing from the individuals when
carrying out activities on the internet.
This Section 24 stipulates that:
“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other
matter by means of computer systems or network that —

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

 … (b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a
message to be sent: commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable
on conviction to a fine of not more than N7, 000, 000.00 or imprisonment
for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) Any person who knowingly or intentionally transmits or causes the
transmission of any communication through a computer system or network
—…
(c) containing any threat to harm the property or reputation of the
addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat
to accuse… commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on
conviction— …
(ii) in the case of paragraph
(c) … of this subsection, to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and/or a
minimum fine of N15, 000,000.00.”
It is recommended that some of the wrongs to be defined by the new laws with definite scope. In
cases of breach, there should be a form of judicial review in determining whether an act leads to
breach of the law. The courts will have to consider the evidence given, the facts and circumstances
of the case supplied by the parties before determining if the content breaches the law. The cyber-
administrative body will then act on the ruling of the court to institute and action or not to. This
will prevent the government from subjecting the interpretation of the law to its whims and caprices.
We can trust the courts and the legal practitioners to do their job in the administration of justice
by employing the devices of fair hearing.

Also, the law may contain provisions that does not necessary punish a one-time cyber-wrongdoer.
There can be warning orders, non-custodial orders made by the court for cyber-wrongs that do not
amount to criminal offences. This can be used in lieu of severe sentences like paying huge fines or
long prison terms as proposed in the Protection from Internet Falsehoods, Manipulations and other
Related Matter Bill, 2019.

A special court may be created for the adjudication of internet related matters. A resemblance of
such idea is the Coroner’s Court. The court can have two assessors or something related like the
Family Courts to advise the judge. By this, judges who are experts in ICT and ICT laws will put
their knowledge to use as ICT is a technical aspect of law that does not cast its pearl before the
swine of lazy inquisitions. These courts may be designated with jurisdiction equal with the High

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010

Court and should have powers to make judicial review, order the closing down of illegal websites,
award compensations to individuals. The dilemma of determining what is fake news who be
largely solve since the court through its reviews will address the issue.

It is believed that the various recommendations made above, when executed, will generally address
the incidences of internet abuse in Nigeria, at the same time, evil perpetrators will be brought to
book without streamlining the fundamental rights of Nigerians to freedom of speech and privacy.
On the other hand, the digital rights of the people will be protected as the government will not be
allowed to maneuver its way into the enforcement system.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3773010