Follow Us on Google
Simeon Mpamugoh
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, has said that the Cybercrimes Prohibition, Prevention, Act of 2015 was enacted to deal with such crimes that were not necessarily captured by the general criminal statutes.
He added that notwithstanding the noble intentions behind the enactment of the Act, it has not been immune to criticism and challenge on the ground that it was undemocratic under the Nigerian constitution.
He said this during a media Interactive section on freedom of expression, media freedom and the constitutionality and legality of the Cybercrime Act in Nigeria which was organized by Socio-Economic Rights And Accountability Project (SERAP) with support from National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Lagos.
The roundtable addressed the threats, harassment and intimidation faced by journalists and media professionals since the passage of the Act in 2015..
Oyetibo said that the Act remains a statute in force and enforceable under Nigerian law and represents the only specific law on cybercrimes in Nigeria, noting that it appears that questions as to its constitutionality were likely to linger for a while yet.
Represented by Mofesomo Tayo Oyetibo of Twelve Legal, he said despite all of the immeasurable benefits of the Internet, it also presents an opportunity for those who have access to it and are criminally intentioned to misuse it hence the need for cybercrime legislation.
“It is within this realm of opportunity that the species of crime known as cybercrime thrives,” he said.
He revealed that the act contains 59 sections, contending that there was no doubt it has had a significant impact on Nigeria and Nigerians not only in social but also economic terms. And that it has had an impact on the manner in which Nigerians were received abroad, and contributed significantly to the erosion of trust for Nigerians domestically and abroad.
On the economic front, he said it has resulted in significant pecuniary losses to Nigeria and Nigerians in terms of revenue and economic opportunities, adding that the act is constitutional under section 4(2) of the Constitution in the sense that it was validly enacted by the National Assembly, and such a consideration has to do with the question of whether it contains any specific provisions that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and void and unconstitutional.
