JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
The Socio-Economic and Accountability (SERAP) and Amnesty International projects have urged the President of the Tinubu Soccer to “direct the Attorney General Federation and the Minister of Justice MR Lateef Fagbemi, San to immediately withdraw accusations against activists Omoyle Sowore, x [formerly Twitter] and Facebook owner for MR Sowore’s post that is suspected to be critical and ‘anti-tinubu’ on the social media platform. “
Absorption and Amnesty International urged him to “direct the State Service Department (DSS) and other security and law enforcement institutions to immediately stop abusing the judicial process to silence public criticism and violate Nigerian rights through the use of strategic lawsuits on public participation (slappps) or similar forms of harassment.”
Absorption and Amnesty International also urged him to “direct Fagbemi to immediately prepare anti-slapp laws for the National Assembly, to protect the Nigerians from the wearing weaponry of the Judiciary by DSS and Security and other law enforcement agencies and to protect the right to freedom of freedom.”
In the letter dated September 20, 2025 and signed together by Deputy Director of Collawole Oluwadare and AI Director Nigeria Isa Sanusi, the groups said, “The weapon of the Judicial System to carry out strong actions on differences of peaceful opinion is entirely inconsistent with the Nigerian constitution 1999 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligation. “
The groups said, “Slapp and lawsuits of defamation are not needed or proportional under the Nigerian Constitution and Human Rights Agreement which is a Nigerian state.
According to the group, “a lawsuit that challenges the legality and compatibility of the provisions of cyberspace (prohibitions, prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Law 2024 with the right to freedom of expression and information is also delayed before the Ecowas Court.”
The groups said, “As a matter of legal rules, DSS and other law enforcement and law enforcement institutions cannot and may not use amended actions to silence the peaceful differences while waiting for the trial and determination of the lawsuit by the court.”
The letter was read in part: “Your government has a legal obligation to prevent harassment through legal processes against Nigerians peacefully using their human rights, and to protect the legitimacy, independence, and disadvantage of the lawsuit trial against the Cyber Crime Law before the Ecowas Court.
“The use of lawsuits for defamation of SLAPP and criminal names is not in accordance with the basic principles of democratic society, which Nigeria aspires. Politicians and public officials and other institutions must tolerate a high level of criticism because of their public position in democratic society.
“Nigerian authority not only has a negative obligation not to disturb human rights but also has a positive obligation to facilitate and protect these rights.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and full pleasure of this right is the center to achieve individual freedom and to develop democracy. This is not only a foundation of democracy, but also very necessary for developing civil society.
“Every restriction on human rights including the right to freedom of expression must meet the legality requirements, function as one of the legal objectives that are explicitly regulated in the Nigerian constitution and human rights agreements, and must be needed, and proportional to that goal.
“The Nigerian Court and Regional Human Rights Courts consistently argue that politicians must expect a much greater criticism of their actions and their functions than ordinary people. This court and other human rights mechanisms have left the use of defamation as a legal instrument to die.
“The use of lawsuits for defamation of SLAPP and criminal names by security and law enforcement agencies with the aim of silencing criticism is a threat to freedom of expression. Slapp lawsuits raises a serious risk to democracy and the rule of law because they limit public participation.
“We will be grateful if the recommended steps are taken within 7 days of receipt and/or the publication of this letter. If we have not heard of news from you at that time, we will consider all the right legal actions including before the Ecowas Court to force your government to fulfill our requests for the public interest.
Also read: EFCC For Korean Police Agency Partners About War Against Financial Crimes
“According to our information, the Federal Government recently demanded Sahara’s publisher and activist, and activist Omoyle Sowore with X and Facebook owner for the ‘Anti-Tinubu’ post recently suspected of being ‘anti-Tinubu’ on the social media platform.
“Two of the calculations were brought based on cyber crime law while three accusations of defamation of other criminal names, causing fear and public disorders were brought based on the Criminal Code Law.
“The lawsuit dated September 16, 2025, was submitted at the Federal High Court in Abuja after Sowore allegedly refused to delete certain posts suspected of criticizing President Tinubu. The accusation was submitted on behalf of DSS and the Federal Government by the Director of Public Prosecution at the Ministry of Justice.
“DSS in May 2025 also filed a Slapp lawsuit against Professor Pat Utomi, a former presidential candidate, accused him of trying to seize the executive power of the Illegal Tinubu Bola Bola by forming a shadow government.
“In the lawsuit marked by FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, submitted at the Federal High Court in Abuja, DSS accused that Utomi’s actions were a threat to national security and constitutional order.
“The 2007 presidential candidate from the African Democratic Congress was named the only defendant in the lawsuit. Operations DSS in October 2024 also filed a slapp suit against the accusation of an invalid office invasion.
“These cases illustrate the increasing use of SLAPP lawsuits by DSS and other security and law enforcement institutions in Nigeria to target, harass and intimidate the Nigerians for the implementation of their peaceful human rights.”
“We are worried that Slapp’s lawsuits have a terrible effect on the implementation of the right to freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights that are protected under the Nigerian Constitution and international agreements on civil and political rights and African charters about human and people’s rights.
“The Nigerian Constitution and Human Rights Agreement require your government to guarantee various human rights and fundamental freedom, including freedom of expression, freedom of peace, freedom of association and the right to take part in the implementation of public affairs.”
“We record your repeated commitment to uphold the fundamental rights of the Nigerians, including in your inauguration speech and the new address for a session with the National Assembly to mark Nigerian Democracy Day on June 12, 2025.”
“Specifically, in paragraph 39 from the address you state that, ‘We do not dare to find silence because of the silence forced from voices that are suppressed giving birth to bad chaos and will, not harmonic democracy in the long run.'”
“In paragraph 40, you state that, ‘no one has to bear the burden of injustice just because of writing bad reports about me or calling me a name. Democracy requires a fair level of tolerance to rough words and stinging insults.
“We note that the Ecowas Judiciary Court in its decision dated March 25, 2022 ‘ordered Nigeria’s authority to stop using the 2015 Cyber Crime ACT section to sue anyone on the grounds of insulting or stalking public officials online.”
“The court declares part 24 as’ arbitrary, unclear and repressive ‘and ordered Nigeria’s authority to revoke it in accordance with the country’s human rights obligations.’ But while the virtual crime (amendment) of the 2024 Law has revoked part 24, does not cure the nature of arbitrary provisions, unclear and repressive.
“We are worried that what is ‘causing the details of the law and order’ in part 24 (1) (b) of the law that is changed is unclear and not defined, threatening to punish a peaceful and valid expression and open the provisions until harassment.”
“Cyber Crime Law (Amendment) 2024, in addition to the provisions of section 24 that is arbitrary, unclear and repressive, widely defines ‘cyberstalking’ in section 58 as a ‘way of behavior, directed at certain people who will cause reasonable people to feel afraid.'”
“The provisions of the Cyber Crimes (Amendments) of the Law of 2024 are strong punishment efforts to overcome problems related to stalking and harassing and failing to provide sufficient protection for abuse, especially for the implementation of peaceful and legal human rights.”
“Is it labeled as a cyberstalking, defamation, defamation of government officials or fake news, provisions section 24 of cyberspace (amendments) of Law 2024 in disproportionate to punish public concerns accused and inevitable are inevitable protected and debates about valid problems that are a concern of the public.”
“Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Committee, an independent expert body that monitors state compliance with international agreements on civil and political rights, in general comments No. 34 states that in a state of public debate, ‘Values are placed by agreements based on expression without very high obstacles.'”
“According to the Committee, ‘The fact that the forms of expression are considered insulting a public figure is not enough to justify the imposition of punishment.'”
“The Committee also stated that, ‘all public figures, including those who use the highest political authority such as the head of state and government, are legally subject to political criticism and opposition.'”
“In addition, the committee has asked the countries including Nigeria to decorate the defamation because criminal penalties are always disproportionate for reputation damage.”
“The committee has stated that the defamation law must ensure they do not serve, in practice, to violate the right to freedom of expression and information.”
