Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Thursday, October 1
Global Free Speech

3 Nigerian journalists detained on cybercrime allegations, despite reform

News RoomBy No Comments6 Mins Read3 Views
3 Nigerian journalists detained on cybercrime allegations, despite reform

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Abuja, November 14, 2025—At least three journalists in Nigeria have been detained since August on allegations of violating the country’s Cybercrime Act, despite last year’s reform of the law, highlighting its ongoing use to harass the media. One journalist, known under the pen name Fejiro Oliver, has been behind bars since mid-September.

“Nigerian authorities appear stuck in an era where they see the Cybercrime Act as a readily available tool to harass the press, which is particularly concerning as citizens look to inform themselves ahead of national elections in early 2027,” said CPJ Africa Director Angela Quintal. “We call on authorities to repeal or reform sections of the Cybercrimes Act, and of the penal and criminal codes, that are regularly used to jail journalists”

In the countdown to Nigeria’s presidential and state elections in 2027, CPJ is increasingly concerned about press freedom in the country. During the year before the 2023 elections, CPJ documented at least five cases where police detained and charged journalists for cybercrimes in connection to their work.

  • On September 18, police detained Oliver, an investigative journalist and publisher of privately owned Secret Reporters news outlet, at his office in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, then flew him to Asaba, the capital of southern Delta State. Oliver’s real name is Tega Oghenedoro.

On October 3, Oliver was charged with cyberbullying, according to court documents, which CPJ reviewed, and his lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, who spoke with CPJ.

The charge sheet alleged that Oliver made several “malicious” publications on his Facebook account in July and August “aimed at destroying the reputation” of Delta State Governor Sheriff Francis Orohwedor Oborevwori by calling him “defamatory names and accusing him of incompetence” and “rigging.” In his reporting, Oliver has consistently alleged mismanagement by Oborevwori, according to CPJ’s review of the Secret Reporters site.

A 2021 photo shows Facebook’s logo on a smartphone screen. (Photo: APF/Kirill Kudryavtsev)

The same charge sheet accused the journalist of “cyberstalking” Delta State’s Central Senator, Ede Dafinone Omueya, with Facebook posts between May and July “aimed at destroying his reputation” by calling him names and accusing him of stealing.

The charge sheet said Obovwowri and Omueya made statements to the police and presented screenshots of the publication as evidence. 

Oborevwori’s spokesperson, Festus Ahon, told CPJ by phone on October 1 that the governor had not made any complaints against Oliver.

On October 16, Oliver was granted bail on condition that he provides 15 million naira (US$10,430) bail bond with two sureties to take responsibility for his obligations to the court, according to the privately owned Daily South Nigeria news site. 

Oliver remains behind bars as he was unable to meet this requirement, Effiong told CPJ.

On October 17, authorities filed two more defamation charges under the criminal code, accusing Oliver of seeking to “injure the reputation” of two other politicians with corruption allegations and insults on Facebook between February and May, according to copies of the charge sheets, reviewed by CPJ. On October 29, Oliver was granted bail in these cases, Effiong said.

CPJ’s requests for comment to Omueye and Delta State police spokesperson Edefa Bright via phone and messaging app did not receive any replies.

  • In August, Azuka Francisca Ogujiuba, publisher of the privately owned Media Room Hub news site, was arrested twice in Abuja for publishing a court injunction related to a disputed land sale, she told CPJ. The first time, she was held for five hours; the second time, for three days. Police searched and retained her phone for five days.

On August 11, she was released after interventions from friends, taking down the article, and writing an apology.

Fisayo Soyombo, founder of the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, appears in an interview in 2021.
Fisayo Soyombo, founder of the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, appears in an interview in 2021. (Screenshot: TVC News Nigeria/YouTube)
  • On September 9, police in western Ekiti State detained Sodeeq Atanda, a reporter with the privately owned Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), on allegations of cyberbullying, criminal defamation, conspiracy, blackmail, and malicious misrepresentation. Atanda was responding to a letter summoning him for questioning, following a complaint by a university vice-chancellor over FIJ’s allegations of sexual harassment.

FIJ founder Fisayo Soyombo told CPJ that Atanda was detained for 11 hours, then freed without charge after multiple calls for his release. Police also wrote to ask Soyombo to come in for questioning on cyberbullying charges.

Ekiti State police spokesperson Abutu Sunday told CPJ that police were constitutionally empowered to invite journalists for questioning.

FIJ has been the target of repeated harassment. Police assaulted FIJ reporter Daniel Ojukwu in August after he asked them to comment on extortion allegations and journalist Emmanuel Uti was threatened by a businessman in September after he reported allegations of fraud.

Reached by CPJ, Lagos State police spokesperson Abimbola Adebis said he would investigate the matter, then provided several other police phone numbers to call for comment but CPJ’s calls were not answered.

Journalists jailed and harassed

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu in Paris in 2024.
President Tinubu in Paris in 2024. (Photo:AFP/ Sarah Meyssonnier)

In February 2024, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu signed the cybercrime amendments into law, reducing the scope of Section 24, which now relates to computer communications that are pornographic, “known to be false for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order or posing a threat to life.” But these reforms left journalists at risk of arrest and maintained that section’s penalty of up to three years in prison.

CPJ research shows that at least 25 journalists faced prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act before the 2024 reforms, including Oliver, who was charged in a separate case in 2017. Five journalists have been prosecuted for cybercrime since the reforms — Oliver, and four other journalists jailed for almost six months before being freed in an out of court settlement.

Five were harassed, but not formally charged, between March and May 2024:

  • Segun Olatunji was detained for two weeks, blindfolded, chained, and dumped 400 kilometers from home, after publishing allegations of military corruption.
  • Police threatened FIJ board chairperson Bukky Shonibare, while Soyombo went into hiding after publishing a smuggling investigation.
  • Daniel Ojukwu disappeared for days after reporting on government corruption. 



Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

          As news broke that 84,270 people, including more than 32,000 children, had been affected by Nepal’s catastrophic floods, one visual offered something the world desperately needed in the moment: hope. The video shows a little girl, buried under thick mud, being is rescued by Nepal’s emergency teams. Instinctively, the viewer roots for her as rescuers carry her to safety, wrapping her shivering body in a red shawl. But the most moving moment of the video comes towards the end. The girl is sitting motionless in a relief camp, an officer feeding her warm soup. As the camera lingers on her face, a faint smile almost begins to show. It is the kind of image that can offer the viewer respite from the horrors of a humanitarian crisis. The video rapidly spread rapidly across all social media platforms, with commentators calling it a miracle. Of sorts. In fact, it was an AI miracle. Agence France-Presse (AFP) Fact Check’s investigation led them to an India-based creator, who admitted creating the video with the help of AI-generative tools. His justification was disarmingly straightforward: emotionally engaging visuals perform well online. This was just one of the many digitally-manufactured “miracles” put into social media heavy rotation during the floods. Another clip, showing a bridge collapsing into floodwaters swallowing vehicles and human lives, seemed to have been lifted straight out of a Roland Emmerich disaster film. The video racked up more than 2 million views on X before it was debunked as AI-generated by Factly. What made this social media post stand out for me was the identity of one of the people sharing it – an experienced news editor. The post, still pinned on his X profile and with more than 2 million views, suggests that even experienced newsroom decision-makers could be fooled by synthetic disaster footage – or, worse still, be untroubled about the veracity of such videos. Both videos incorporate the visual language of short films, but were not released in cinemas or on Netflix. They surfaced on Facebook, X and Instagram, even as emergency teams continued to search for the thousands of people that went missing after a glacial collapse triggered devastating floods in Nepal and Tibet on August 26. Even as survivors photographed authentic eyewitness footage, synthetic visuals emerged alongside them. The floods became one of the first major climate disasters in South Asia where documentation and fabrication coexisted in the same visual ecosystem.     Screenshot of debunked Nepal floods footage “During earlier disasters, our primary challenge was identifying old footage, establishing where a video was recorded and determining whether it was being presented in the correct context,” Saurabh Shukla told Index. Shukla is founder and editor-in-chief of NewsMobile, an India-based independent media organisation that debunks AI-related deepfakes and focuses on verified information. “The biggest difference today is the sheer speed at which fabricated and misleading visuals entered the information ecosystem,” Shukla said. “With generative AI, we now have an additional challenge – determining whether the event depicted in a video ever happened in the first place.” This has fed into a media environment where unverified visuals are disseminated faster than the verified facts reported by journalists. “Speed without verification can amplify confusion, while verification without timely reporting can leave an information vacuum,” Shukla said. “The challenge for newsrooms is to strike the right balance between being fast and being accurate.” The first images of rescue missions in secluded mountainous regions almost always come from locals, and thus forming the spine of disaster reporting. These inevitably blurry and shaky recordings do not have the polished quality of professional news reporting, but do carry something far more consequential: the credibility that comes with eyewitness documentation. These images often shape the core of the collective memory of a tragedy. But in an age of visual manipulation and trickery, that presumption of authenticity no longer holds. Factly conducted 30 fact-checks into coverage of the Nepal floods; fully one-third involved AI-generated visuals. “Beyond checking the location, source, and context of a visual, we also had to establish whether the visual itself was authentic,” Akshay Kumar Appani, lead fact checker and researcher at Factly, told Index. “During breaking disasters, old AI-generated visuals can spread rapidly while being presented as current footage. This makes it harder for journalists to establish the truth. The visual of the miracle child perfectly captured this dilemma. It was designed to evoke an emotional reaction; but it also looked like the kind of footage that journalists hope to find during crisis reporting. The video was vertically filmed. The camera movement was wobbly. The lighting was grainy. The muffled background sound felt believable. The video presented none of the glaring distortions that once made AI interventions easy to spot. Fabricated videos, today, can be produced to mimic the aesthetics of authentic citizen journalism. It was for this precise reason that the floods presented journalists with a crisis that went beyond recognising AI-generated images: they were increasingly obliged to verify whether the footage reaching them was genuine in the first place. Screenshot of video debunked by Factly Newsmobile’s verification process increasingly involves examining individual frames, conducting reverse-image searches, analysing visual inconsistencies and using AI-detection tools where appropriate. “However, detection tools are only one part of the process. We still need corroboration,” Shukla said. “We cannot rely solely on automated detection tools,” Sumit Dubey, South Asia digital verification editor for AFP’s Fact Check vertical, told Index. Fact-checking, he explained, requires going beyond automated outputs: tracing the original source, examining context, verifying metadata, looking for corroborating evidence and, where possible, speaking to relevant sources. “Automated tools are useful indicators, but fact-checking cannot be outsourced to a button,” Dubey said. The proliferation of synthetic media output in the wake of natural disasters is not new. It’s the sophistication of the output that has changed. For years, much of the public conversation around AI manipulation centred on faces: celebrity deepfakes, altered political speeches and fabricated portraits. The Nepal floods flipped that narrative. Almost every fabricated clip featured rivers, glaciers, collapsing hillsides, dams, flooded valleys or stranded animals. “AI-generated environmental content poses a different problem: [the] tells are failures of physics rather than anatomy,” Mahsa Alimardani told Index. Alimardani is associate director for technology threats and opportunities at Witness, a global organisation helping people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights This explains why the Nepal videos were so plausible. The miracle girl video wasn’t believable just because of her facial expressions. It was convincing because the sludge moved convincingly, because the choreography resembled actual emergency rescues, because the emotional tonality seemed genuine. “Most post-hoc detection tools were designed for content featuring physical characteristics, and they currently struggle significantly with environmental and disaster content,” Bruna Martins dos Santos – policy and advocacy manager, Witness Technology Threats and Opportunities – told Index. “Journalists might also struggle because many tools have limited capabilities to identify synthetic content generated elsewhere,” she said. Another emerging trend is the increasingly complicated role of Big Tech itself in detecting and labelling fake generative-AI content. Some of the clearest AI verdicts came from detection tools built by the very same companies whose models created the same fakes. Three weeks after the US state of California and the EU mandated the requirement for greater transparency with respect to AI-generated content, Witness and Indicator tested thirteen major AI providers. They found that seven had no public detector at all. “The capability to identify synthetic content partly existed. The governance around it did not,” Alimardani said. When both authentic and synthetic content circulate in disaster situations, the biggest challenge that journalists face is that of establishing truth amidst widespread public uncertainty and doubt. According to Martins dos Santos, “Journalists and local fact-checkers can face immense time pressure, often wasting scarce resources re-detecting the same recycled disaster footage across multiple platforms and languages.” The greatest danger emerging from Nepal may not be that people believed the fake videos. It may be that they have begun to doubt the real ones. Shukla’s concern is that people may stop trusting visual evidence altogether. “Imagine a situation where genuine footage of a disaster emerges, but people dismiss it as AI-generated. Facts become secondary to perception.” Within days of the floods, even authentic CCTV footage from the Gyirong border was being perceived as AI-generated, prompting fact-checkers to establish that the scenes it depicted were real. This exposed a troubling issue: even authentic visuals can no longer be taken at face value. Martins dos Santos told Index that the phenomenon has a name: “Liar’s dividend”, whereby the mere existence of convincing synthetic content allows bad actors to dismiss genuine, damaging evidence as fake simply by claiming it was AI-generated. This means that genuine footage is no longer accorded credibility immediately; it may first be perceived with suspicion. “This means a video may look completely authentic and still be fabricated. Conversely, genuine footage can contain compression artefacts that make it appear suspicious,” Shukla warned. Appani, for his part, noted that synthetic media doesn’t merely affect verification in real time. It also reshapes collective memory. “Widely circulated synthetic or recycled footage may eventually be remembered as genuine imagery from the disaster. Generative-AI could therefore affect not only how disasters are verified in real-time, but also how they are documented and remembered in the future.”The Nepal floods left destruction in its wake, and also a warning for journalists covering climatic disaster. The defining challenge of disaster reporting is no longer capturing the first image, but establishing which image the world can trust. In Shukla’s words: “For fact-checkers, the challenge is not just determining whether a video is real. It is establishing whether it actually belongs to the event it claims to depict.” READ MORE

Add A Comment

Comments are closed.