In recent years, the intersection between freedom of expression and cybercrime legislation has become a contentious issue in Nigeria. Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act criminalizes the intentional dissemination of false information through computer systems or networks, while Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression. This article examines the implications of these legal provisions in light of a real-life case involving Chioma Okoli, who posted on her Facebook profile, a review of her experience with Nagiko Tomato paste.
Potential Legal Considerations
Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act provides that:
“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that 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 offense 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”[1]
The provision aims to safeguard against the spread of misinformation and its potential consequences, such as social unrest or reputational damage.
Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution: Upholding Freedom of Expression
Conversely, Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and share information without interference. This constitutional provision reflects Nigeria’s commitment to protecting individuals’ rights to express themselves freely, in any form or medium.
The Erisco Foods Limited v. Chioma Okoli Saga
On September 17, 2023, Mrs. Chioma Okoli posted on her Facebook profile that she purchased a tin of Nagiko Tomato paste, she stated, “…I decided to buy this one. When I opened it, I decided to taste it. Omo! Sugar is just too much!”. Erisco Foods Limited released a statement describing her allegations as untrue, and she was subsequently arrested.[2]
In a recent development, the Nigerian police have reiterated their decision to prosecute Chioma Okoli, alleging her online commentary on Erisco Foods Limited’s tomato paste violates the Cybercrime Act of 2015. The police spokesperson, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, made this known through a statement on Thursday, March 7, 2024, advising Chioma Okoli to cease bail jumping and submit to the judicial process for resolution.[3]
According to him, “The Nigeria Police Force reaffirms its commitment to upholding the rule of law in the Erisco Tomato matter. The involvement of Mrs. Chioma Okoli warrants scrutiny as she stands accused of violating some salient parts of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015 as preliminary investigations conducted have unearthed compelling evidence indicating Mrs. Chioma Okoli’s alleged role in the violation of extant laws, particularly those related to the proper use of cyberspace.”[4]
Legal Analysis:
Whether or not Chioma Okoli is guilty of violating Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act?
In determining the answer to this issue, these factors must be considered:
- Knowledge or Intent: Firstly, it is imperative to ascertain whether the individual in question knowingly or intentionally dispatched a message or any other form of content via a computer system or network. This inquiry involves an examination of the mental state of the individual at the time of dissemination to discern whether they had knowledge of the falsehood of the information or harbored a specific intent to propagate false content.
- Falsity of Information: A meticulous assessment of the accuracy of the communicated information is essential. This entails scrutinizing the substance of the communication to determine its accuracy or truthfulness. Should Mrs. Chioma Okoli’s assertion regarding the Nagiko Tomato paste containing “too much sugar” prove to be accurate and substantiated by evidence, it may not satisfy the necessary condition of falsehood as outlined in Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act.
- Purpose or Motive: An evaluation of the underlying purpose or motive behind the dissemination of the false information is paramount. Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act enumerates various purposes for which such dissemination may be undertaken, including causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will, or needless anxiety to another individual. An assessment of whether the individual’s actions were driven by any of these enumerated purposes is imperative.
- Impact on Others: Equally significant is the consideration of the potential impact of the false information on affected parties. This entails assessing whether the dissemination of the information has resulted in or is likely to result in harm, annoyance, or other adverse repercussions for Erisco Foods Limited. Determining whether the dissemination directly or indirectly caused harm, annoyance, or other adverse consequences for another individual is essential in discerning a violation of Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act. Did the statement indeed cause harm to Erisco Foods Limited?
- Recklessness: The element of recklessness warrants careful scrutiny in the evaluation process. Recklessness entails a disregard for the truth or potential ramifications of one’s actions. If the individual disseminated the information recklessly, with knowledge of its potential falsity or without exercising due diligence to ascertain its accuracy, it may signify a violation of Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act. Even if Chioma Okoli’s assertion regarding the Nagiko Tomato paste holds truth, should she have conveyed it recklessly? Erisco Foods bears the burden of demonstrating that Chioma acted with either intent or reckless disregard for the truth in making the statement on her Facebook profile.
- Evidence: Lastly, the gathering and evaluation of pertinent evidence pertaining to the dissemination of false information are indispensable. This encompasses a thorough examination of the content of the communication, the circumstances surrounding its transmission, and any resultant responses or reactions from affected parties. The presence of credible and substantiated evidence significantly bolsters the determination of whether a violation of Section 24(b) of the Cybercrime Act has transpired.
Whether or not Chioma’s right to freedom of expression was infringed?
Constitutional Protection: Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and impart information without interference.
Limitations:
While Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 guarantees freedom of expression, this right is subject to certain restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, national security, and the rights and reputation of others.
One significant limitation is the Cybercrime Act of 2015, particularly Section 24(b). This provision curtails freedom of expression by penalizing individuals who knowingly spread false information online, even if done unintentionally.
Additionally, Nigerian courts have recognized defamation laws as a limitation on freedom of expression. Defamation involves making false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or entity. While freedom of expression protects the right to express opinions and share information, it does not extend to making false statements that damage the reputation of others.
Based on the examination of the relevant legal provisions, it is our humble submission that Chioma Okoli exercised her right to freedom of expression. However, it appears that she inadvertently exceeded the boundaries of this right due to a lack of awareness regarding the constraints inherent within this right. Additionally, her exercise of freedom of expression must be scrutinized within the confines of Section 39 of the Constitution and the constraints imposed by the Cybercrime Act.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case of Chioma Okoli underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and cybercrime legislation in Nigeria. While individuals have the right to express themselves freely, they must do so responsibly, mindful of the potential consequences of their actions. The legal analysis highlights the complexities involved in determining violations of the Cybercrime Act and upholding constitutional protections. Moving forward, fostering legal awareness and responsible online behavior will be crucial in navigating this intricate intersection and ensuring the harmonious coexistence of fundamental rights and legal obligations in the digital age.
[1] Section 24 (b) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015
[2] PRESS RELEASE “Chioma/Erisco Saga: When the Customer is not always right” THIS DAY https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/03/19/chioma-erisco-saga-when-the-customer-is-not-always-right Accessed 26/03/2024
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.