BY RITA OYIBOKA/AMAYINDI YAKUBU
The knock came just before dawn. It was heavy, insistent, the kind of knock that makes the walls hum and sends the neighbours scurrying to their windows.
Inside a cramped flat in the outskirts of Lagos, a young content creator sat frozen before the glow of his laptop screen, his last post still trending on X. He had written what he thought was just another “hot take” about a businessman accused of fraud, a few biting sentences, laced with sarcasm, sent out into the digital void for retweets and clout. But as the banging grew louder and the shouts of “Police! Open this door!” filled the air, the reality of Nigeria’s digital landscape crashed in on him. Words were no longer just words.
The door gave way. Armed policemen filed in, reading out a warrant. His crime was not armed robbery or kidnapping, but defamation, cyberstalking under the Cybercrime Act of 2015. As he was led away, slippers scraping the concrete, neighbours whispered, some shaking their heads, others recording on their phones. It was a scene Nigerians are slowly becoming accustomed to in the age where activism, free speech, and cyberbullying collide on the unregulated terrain of social media.
This fictional scene mirrors a reality unfolding across Nigeria, where the fine line between activism and cyberbullying has grown increasingly blurred. The offline and particularly, the online activism of the Publisher of Sahara Reporters and two-time presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Mr. Omoyele Sowore, has brought this debate sharply into focus. A man who has built his name on defiance, Sowore is no stranger to state persecution.
From his student days at the University of Lagos in the 1990s, where he led radical protests against military rule, to the founding of Sahara Reporters in New York in 2006, a platform that exposed corruption and human rights abuses in Nigeria, his life has been one long confrontation with power.
Sowore’s activism has always thrived on the cutting edge of free speech. His arrest in 2019 for calling for a #RevolutionNow protest against President Muhammadu Buhari’s government made global headlines. Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience. Though released on bail after months in detention, his voice has never softened.
In 2023, after contesting yet again in the presidential elections, he has turned more aggressively to social media, where his recent posts take aim at President Bola Tinubu and the Federal Government. His online jabs, accusing Tinubu of presiding over a corrupt system, mocking policies that deepen hardship, and daring security agencies to silence him, have been as scathing as they are viral.
But this activism has now drawn the full weight of the Federal government. The charge sheet says that his posts dated August 25 and 26, 2025, in which he used both his X handle and his Facebook page, labelled President Tinubu a “criminal” and alleged that he had falsely declared in Brazil that corruption no longer existed in Nigeria.
The government argues that those statements are false and defamatory, made with the intent to undermine the presidency, incite public disorder, and damage the reputation of the President. The case, again filed as FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, names Meta and X as co-defendants because the posts appeared on their platforms.
The relevant law is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024, which amends the original 2015 Act. Under Section 24(1)(b) of the Amendment Act, using an online platform to spread false claims intended to incite unrest, cause fear, or damage reputations is punishable. The law also gives security agencies the power to intercept communications under urgent circumstances, increases penalties, and expands the scope of what counts as cybercrime. The amendment was signed into law on February 28, 2024.
There is, however, concern among many legal observers about how vague some of the provisions remain. Civil society groups like the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have warned that Section 24 could be used to stifle dissent, journalistic work, legitimate activism, and ordinary citizens’ expression. They argue that “capable of provoking public disorder” or “false claims” can be interpreted broadly and may chill speech that is critical of government.
To probe the gravity of this issue, The Pointer Newspaper sought the views of legal experts, advocates, and everyday Nigerians, who shared their experiences and insights on cyberbullying and its implications for both personal dignity and national development.
Free Speech Is Not Free Damage – Nwanze
Speaking with The Pointer, Abuja-based Lawyer and cybersecurity enthusiast Mr Godstime Nwanze drew a sharp distinction between activism and defamation.
He said, “When people talk about cyberbullying, they often dismiss it as just ‘banter’ or ‘freedom of expression.’ But the truth is, free speech comes with responsibility. Cyberbullying, we cannot separate it from the issue of free speech and activism in Nigeria. Activism thrives on robust debate, on calling out the government and powerful individuals when they do wrong. But the danger is when that same freedom of expression is abused to spread lies, character assassination, or deliberate defamation.
“Look at the Mercy Chinwo paternity saga. A content creator falsely alleged that her husband was not the father of her child. It went viral within hours. People laughed, mocked, and shared it without verifying facts. Days later, Mercy Chinwo and her husband had to issue strong denials, but the damage was already done. The mental toll on the family, the reputational stain, and the unnecessary stress were all products of a reckless post. That was cyberbullying dressed up as gist.
“Or take the recent case of actress Dayo Amusa, who was accused by a TikToker of having HIV. That allegation had no proof, no evidence, nothing, just a few words pushed into the public space. Yet, it caught fire because bad news travels faster than the truth online. Imagine the stigma, the phone calls from worried family and friends, the embarrassment. These are real human beings behind the headlines, and we keep forgetting that.
“Now, compare that to someone like Omoyele Sowore, whose activism, whether you agree with his style or not, is rooted in challenging the government and calling attention to injustice. The line between activism and defamation is thin, and Nigerians need to understand it. Activism is about truth, accountability, and reform. Cyberbullying is about malice, mockery, and misinformation. Free speech does not mean freedom to destroy other people’s lives with lies.
“This is why I believe our laws need to evolve. The Cybercrime Act 2015, amended in 2024, is good, but enforcement is weak. And social media platforms like Meta and X should not be exempt from accountability. They must be compelled to act faster when harmful content trends. At the same time, citizens need digital literacy; people must learn that once they hit ‘post,’ they are legally and morally responsible for their words. Free speech in Nigeria is sacrosanct, but it should never be an excuse for free damage.”
Sowore’s Case Less About Cyberbullying But… – Adibeli
Enugu-based lawyer specialising in arbitration, Barrister Clara Adibeli also weighed in. She said, “In arbitration, we always say that disputes escalate because people fail to draw the line early. The same applies to online speech. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, yes, but it is not an absolute right. Even in international law, free speech stops where harm begins. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, we are seeing too many cases where activism and outright bullying are being mixed.
“From an arbitration point of view, I believe we need alternative ways to resolve cyberbullying and defamation disputes quickly. Court processes in Nigeria are slow, and by the time a judgment is delivered, the victim has already suffered reputational and emotional loss. A fast-track mediation or arbitration system for online disputes could provide redress and hold offenders accountable without years of litigation.
“That said, I must emphasise, free speech is still critical. Without it, voices like Sowore’s would be silenced, and Nigeria would sink deeper into authoritarianism. But as citizens, we must learn to use our voices responsibly. Activism is not an insult contest. It is not about who can trend the most damaging allegation. It is about truth, accountability, and justice.
“I fear that the court case against Sowore, Meta, and X is less about cyberbullying and more about controlling the narrative ahead of the elections. However, the way forward is balance: protect activism, but punish bullying. Protect free speech, but criminalise defamation. Hold social media platforms accountable, but also hold individuals accountable for their words. Because, at the end of the day, every tweet, every post, every comment is a brick, you are either building society with it or destroying it.”
Cyberbullying Stems From Ignorance – Ademola
In Kaduna, multi-genre art advocate Jola Praise Ademola, who works with the Stand With the Girl Initiative (SWAG), recounted her experience. According to her, “I remember one time when a comment was made by someone that affected us as an organisation. People who actually bully do not know anything about the person they are bullying. They are just saying those things to make themselves feel better about something, and it’s sad. It just shows how little their minds are.
“So, that was the challenge we faced at the time, and because her comment was so offensive under our post, we had to take it down, but I think we gave her a polite response regardless, and she ceased from doing that. But unfortunately, I wonder why she took it upon herself to do that because she wasn’t even sure of the facts. It was actually a competition and she was claiming that people usually lie, that we lie, she said we lie about our prizes and our competitions, she doesn’t know anyone who has won it, she hasn’t even checked her records, she has not reached out to anybody, she just made her assumption and I think she also applied for the competition.
“I work with girls. When we get to hear people say things about how the organisation is biased and all of that, why is it that they always handle issues, or mostly the concerns of the girl child? One thing we always let them know is that the girl child does not exist in isolation, and we do have programs where we invite males and engage males to, you know, be involved in, but most people say these things because they do not have the full knowledge.
“So when people cyber bully, they do that because they don’t have all the facts and they judge based on limited knowledge and it hurts, but it’s our approach to it that matters, best thing to do is to respond politely, if you see someone that is still bent on trouble, or fermenting trouble, then you back out and delete the offensive comments, so other people don’t engage in it and it becomes something that will cause you to lose your sleep.”
Her story highlights how cyberbullying often stems from ignorance rather than fact, yet its consequences can damage credibility and disrupt serious work.
FGM Advocacy Brought Me Attacks – Dennis
Meanwhile, Abuja-based broadcaster and development media journalist Hannah Dennis also shared her ordeal. She said, “When it comes to cyberbullying, I’ve had lots of experiences, like a whole lot, but one of them that really struck me was one where I was advocating for a course on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). So, in Nigeria, there’s a whole lot of cases, Akwa Ibom, Katsina, the entire South-South, North, and West. In fact, let me just say, in the entire country, it’s a pandemic.
“I sought to, you know, be their voice or be a source of knowledge to let these girls know what Female Genital Mutilation is, the health effects, and every single thing that comes with it. And then one day, somebody slid into my DM and told me that I was being brainwashed and that I was being brainwashed by the whites because I am advocating for the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF).
“So that’s how the person said that I was being brainwashed by the white, and because I wasn’t being funded by this organisation. That also aided his thoughts, his conclusion that I am simply advocating for it because I am being funded by them and not because it’s a bad thing. I had to find a way to sort of educate him on this cause, that when it comes to FGM, there is no health benefit at all.”
Her account reveals how activism around sensitive social issues often invites personal attacks disguised as criticism, attacks that can discourage advocacy and silence voices.
Cyberbullying: We Need Specialised Enforcement – Kudih
From a legal perspective, Moses Haggai Kudih, a 400-level law student at Gombe State University, explained the implications of cyberbullying. According to him, “So, cyberbullying has become a very common thing today in our society and on social media, especially with the rise of social media usage. If you go online today, you’ll see different forms of cyberbullying and defamation on social media, and the funny part of it is that those who have been defamed don’t even know their rights. They don’t even know they can take some legal actions for those kinds of actions, and then those who are actually bullying and defaming people on social media don’t know the legal implications of that. Yes, and we have different forms of cyberbullying.
“One is trolling, disruptive behaviour with offensive language and insults. Go on social media today, and you’ll see many celebrities, rivals, and friends trolling each other with lies and so many other things, and they don’t even know the legal implications of that. And the second one is we have cyberstalking, yeah, persistent and intentional messaging.
“The third one we have is the outing, the unauthorised sharing of private or embarrassing information. I could tag that as evasion of privacy. You did not ask for my permission, and you went ahead to share some information or maybe pictures with someone or online. There are so many legal consequences attached to this.
“The act regulating this is the Cybercrime Act of 2015. It was enacted by Nigerian lawmakers in 2015, and it was amended just recently. It was amended, I think, in 2024, and the amendment was to grant security agencies authority to intercept communications in urgent situations and increase penalties for cybercrime offences.
“I think the governments have played their own role in protecting people from this cyberbullying by creating or enacting the Cybercrime Act 2015, as amended in 2014. But I think one thing they need to work on again is that they should just create a specialised law enforcement agency. You see, by creating a specialised law enforcement that just works on cyberbullying alone, it will help in streamlining reporting processes and specialised units for online harassment.
“On our own part, we, the citizens, the role we need to play is raising awareness. Yes, we can educate our fellow citizens, educate students, and staff about cyberbullying, its impact, and ways to address it, and also its legal consequences. In conclusion, I think defamation should just be criminalized.”
His call reflects the urgent need for not just laws, but also specialised institutions and citizen awareness to tackle cyberbullying effectively.
Broader Impacts, Concerns, Path Forward
With over 107 million internet users and a youth population under 18 making up nearly 45.4 per cent of the country, cyberbullying has become one of the most pressing digital threats in Nigeria. The danger is not just in the abusive content itself, but in the weak legal and social structures meant to address it.
The Sowore’s case, amongst others, is a signpost of where Nigeria is heading: toward a landscape where online speech is both powerful and perilous. Laws are tightening, platforms are being named in suits, arrests are being made not just for fake advertisements but for accusations, rumours, and allegations. At the same time, civil liberties activists warn of chilling effects: that people will no longer speak out for fear of legal reprisal.
One concern is legal ambiguity. The Cybercrimes Amendment Act, despite its improvements, uses terms like “false”, “capable of provoking public disorder”, “false and defamatory claim” in ways that can be broad. This gives prosecuting authorities discretion, and possibly too much power, to decide what speech is acceptable. Implementation of legal standards remains inconsistent. Another is awareness: many citizens do not know what counts as defamation, what evidence is needed, or how to defend themselves. Digital literacy remains low in many communities.
Also, there is the issue of platforms: Meta, X, etc. They are often co-defendants or required to take down content by governmental request. The speed of their response, or lack of it, matters. If they remove content unjustly, they may be complicit in censorship; if they fail to act when content is truly defamatory, harmful, or dangerous, then victims suffer.
Then there is emotional, psychological, and social harm. Accused persons face ostracisation, loss of reputation, and mental distress. Families suffer. The public, too, can be misled. Rumours can spiral, and false claims can be repeated. The law may deliver justice, but often too late.
Free speech and activism are vital for democracy. They allow citizens to call out corruption, demand accountability, and challenge those in power. Without them, the risk is authoritarianism, voices silenced, dissent punished. But speech comes with responsibility. When statements are false, harmful, or reckless; when accusations are made without evidence; when attacks are personal rather than issues-based; when people are defamed or reputations destroyed, these are real harms. Cyberbullying is not just cruel words; it is behaviour that causes damage to individuals and society.
The law is stepping in. That is necessary. But the law must be fair, clear, and used with restraint. The Government must guard against the misuse of the law to silence critics. Civil society must push for transparency. Platforms must act responsibly. And citizens must learn: every post, every video, every share has weight.
In a balanced society, activism is protected and defamation is punished. Free speech is sacrosanct, but never absolute. If Nigeria, its people, its courts, its activists, its government, can walk that tightrope, there might be a future for a digital culture that strengthens democracy rather than tears it apart.
