[ad_1]
The federal government has stated that the federal Justice Ministry has committed to continue the amendment of the law on cybercrime, which many lawyers, journalists and activists considered repressive, unconstitutional and illegal.
Mr. Terlumun George Tyendezwa, head of the criminal prosecution department responsible for cybercrime at the Federal Ministry of Justice, said today in an interactive media session on "The Constitutionality and Legality of Cybercrime in Nigeria", organized by the Working Group on Socio-Economic Rights and Responsibility. Project (SERAP) in collaboration with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USA.
At the interactive media session in Ikeja, Lagos, Tyendezwa said, "The law on cybercrime is not perfect. One of the reasons for my presence here is that I have an open door, we want to participate in the law. We want to engage all stakeholders in the justice sector. What is not useful, we can ask for an amendment on this subject. From the waypoint, we, the operators, knew that there were things to change. We are collecting briefs on the amendment of the law. But an amendment takes time and costs money. "
He also said: "We know the importance of law as a social engine. The Attorney General's Office of the Federation and Minister of Justice continues to attach great importance to entrenched fundamental human rights and the participation of all stakeholders in the law on cybercrime is one of our approaches. "
Earlier in the meeting, a group of lawyers, journalists, activists and other stakeholders unanimously said that Nigeria's cybercrime law was "repressive, oppressive and unconstitutional. The law should be immediately repealed or abolished, as many of its provisions flagrantly violate the rights to freedom of expression, badociation and media freedoms. "
The group also called on the next Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to "give priority to the court challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the cybercrime law, contrary to respect for the freedom of the law." 39, expression, including online, and the government's commitment to fight against grand corruption. . "
Among the participants in the interactive session were: representatives of the Premium Times Center for Investigative Journalism (PTCIJ), the National Commission for Human Rights, Amnesty International, the Wole Center. Soyinka for investigative journalism, the agenda for media rights, the German consulate, the director general of the National Agency of Guidance.
Mr. Terlumun George, Federal Minister of Justice, Cybercrime Act, Nurudeen Ogbara, Former President of the Nigerian Bar, Ikorodu, Folake Falana, Malachy Ugwummadu, Chair of the Human Rights Committee (CDHR) and representatives of BudgIT, CODE, Heda Resources, Enough is Enough in Nigeria (EiE), Cleen Foundation, Federal Public Service Pension, Community Life Project, journalists, lawyers, activists and other stakeholders.
Previously, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, in his article entitled The constitutionality and legality of the law on cybercrime in Nigeria said: "The supremacy of the constitution over any other law is an immutable principle of Nigerian constitutional law derived from the provisions of Article 1 (3) of the constitution itself. By creating criminal offenses, Article 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Law uses words whose meaning is totally subjective to describe the crime. actus reuselements of the offenses, although the actus reus It must be possible to define the offense objectively and not subjectively. "
According to him, "Even worse, the Cybercrime Act makes no effort to clarify the meaning of the terms used in its subsection 24 (1) by defining them anywhere in the law, which means that only definitions may be given. to these words in all cases where a person is charged with an offense under section 24 (1) of the Act. "
The newspaper read in part: "In the context of the right of citizens to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution, there is the pressing question of whether the law on cybercrime is adapted to the objective in question. under which it was adopted, in particular in view of the provisions of its Article 24 (1)? "
"It would appear that the answer to this question is negative, which means that it is imperative to take deliberate steps to remedy the situation, especially in the context of widespread complaints against misuse and abuse. of the Cybercrime Law against certain categories of people in Nigeria. "
"In this respect, it is not necessary to resort to lengthy technical recommendations. The only recommendation is that subsection 24 (1) be deleted entirely from the Cybercrime Act because of its apparent inconsistency with the provisions of subsections 36 (12) and 39 (1) of the Constitution. "
"From a practical point of view, this means that a person charged with an offense under section 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Act will involuntarily play the lottery." Judicial interpretation of the words and phrases used in this article. Indeed, virtually all of the words used in subsection 24 (1) of the Act are personal in nature, so that any attempt at definition is entirely subject to the whims and whims of two different groups of people: complainants and judges. "
"It is impossible for a person to be found guilty of an offense under section 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Act without any conjecture or inference on the part of the court as to the meaning of the terms used in this article. Worse still, such conjectures or inferences can be imputed by the court only when the judgment is pronounced, since the accused was not given an opportunity to be heard by the court as to his interpretation of the meaning of those words. expressions. "
"Independently of the foregoing, the right to freedom of expression, including the right to express one's opinion, to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, is guaranteed by the Constitution to any person under Article 39 (1) of the Constitution. A scenario in which a person is required by section 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Act to doubt the exercise of his right to freedom of expression under section 39 (1) of the Constitution is certainly not contemplated by the constitution in any way. "
"Freedom of speech and freedom of badembly are part of the democratic rights of every citizen; our legislature must preserve these rights jealously, because they are part of the foundations on which the government itself rests ".
"It is clear that Article 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Law presages a great danger for all Nigerians. This is because when a communication is made in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, it is impossible for a person to determine whether or not an offense is committed under the Cybercrime Act. This is surely the exact scenario against which the drafters of the constitution wanted to legislate by including the express provisions of sections 36 (12) and 39 (1) of the constitution. "
"24 (1) is a tool that easily lends itself to abuse and misuse by the authorities with respect to freedom of expression in Nigeria. This is due in part to the fact that the law on cybercrime does not contain any guarantee as to the application of Article 24, which provides for heavy criminal penalties. "
"The law on cybercrime is desperately in need of a major overhaul to prevent it from involuntarily and unconstitutionally placing citizens at the unfortunate risk of a draw."
Source link
