The Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) moved yesterday to secure Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII).
It directed all law enforcement agencies, regulators, businesses and stakeholders to put in place mechanisms for the full enforcement of the Cybercrimes Prohibition Act.
The directive will also counter terrorism and violent extremism, strengthen national security and protect economic interests, Head-Strategic Communications, ONSA, Mr. Zakari Mijinyawa, said in Abuja.
In a statement, Mijinyawa described the directive as part of the concrete steps being taken to prevent the use of social media and other platforms by terrorists and organised criminal groups.
According to him, Nigeria had in 2022, joined 66 other countries that signed and ratified the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
The convention was to enhance international cooperation, provide common platform and procedural tools for efficient and safe cyberspace.
Mijinyawa said the directive was pursuant to Section 41(2) (a) of the Cybercrime Act 2015 requiring conformity of Nigerian cybercrime and cybersecurity laws and policies with regional and international standards.
He said that African leaders had recently stressed the urgent need for improved deployment of greater support and resources towards strengthening cybersecurity activities in Africa.
The ONSA director also added that the measure was also in line with the agreement reached at the just concluded High Level African International Counter Terrorism Meeting in Abuja.
Mijinyawa said additional resources would be deployed to counter terrorism and violent extremism as provided in section 44(5) of the Cybercrimes Act.
Crime Prevention Partnership (CPP), a non-governmental organisation, with Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has sensitised hotel owners and stakeholders in Ajeromi Ifelodun Local Government of Lagos State to dangers of cybercrime.
The programme: ‘Prevent! Global Practice of Eradicating Crime’, was organised in partnership with United Kingdom, TAG International and CLEEN Foundation.
Many hotel owners, community associations, Police, DSS and Civil Defence, youths, market men were present at the event in the secretariat at Ajegunle.
Niger State Governor Umaru Bago has cautioned National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members against indulging in cybercrime and other acts that can destroy their lives and the honour of their homes.
Bago spoke yesterday during the closing ceremony of the 2024 Batch ‘A’ Stream One orientation course in Paikoro Local Government Area.
The governor noted that as the greatest asset of any nation, the youths should live exemplary lives.
He said the NYSC scheme had been a veritable platform for harnessing collective energies and creative abilities of graduate youths towards the attainment of national cohesion and development.
Bago, who praised the corps members for their resilience in the last three weeks, urged them to replicate the lessons they learnt during the orientation course.
The State NYSC Coordinator, Mrs. Abdulwahab Alidat, enjoined the corps members to perform their duties with due diligence.
She also urged them to be guided by the provisions of the NYSC and bye-laws as well as workplace ethics.
Rights activists have raised the alarm over an emerging trend: influential persons or institutions instigating the arrest of those who say things they do not like, especially on social media.
No longer do the powerful sue for defamation over alleged false or defamatory reports.
They simply get the makers of the publications, including citizen journalists, arrested and detained for as long as possible.
The arrests are usually based on Section 24(1) b of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act 2015 and Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
Thus, what ordinarily should be civil matters are now given criminal colouration.
Some lawyers see this growing trend as a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed free speech that must be resisted.
The right to freedom of expression is fundamental in a civilised society.
Citizens’ ability to express themselves is one of the hallmarks of democracy.
The Constitution also guarantees the freedom of the press to hold individuals and the government to account.
Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state or powerful entities who use the law as a tool of oppression.
The United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression.
It provides: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
Article 10 of the African Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
“Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinion within the law.”
No right is absolute. One of the major ways of limiting the right to freedom of expression is through the law on defamation of character. But this remedy is now being jettisoned.
Lord Denning, as quoted by learnnigerianlaw.com, says: “To our way of thinking it is elementary that each man should be able to inquire and seek after the truth until he has found it.
“Everyone in kind should be free to think his own thought, have his own opinions, and to give voice to them, in public or in private, so long as he does not speak ill of his neighbour.”
Those who are accused of “speaking ill” of others are now readily arrested and detained under Section 24(1) b of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act 2015 and Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
What the laws say
Section 24(1) of the Cybercrime Act provides: “A person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be sent, or 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 offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7, 000, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term, not more than three years or both.”
Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act provides: “Any person who publishes any defamatory matter is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false, is liable to imprisonment for two years.”
Instances of abuse
Citizen journalists and media professionals have been arrested and detained based on these laws.
The Erisco Foods controversy
Erisco Foods Ltd received a barrage of backlash on social media over the arrest of a female customer, Chioma Egodi, who gave a negative review of its product.
The company’s spokesperson, Nnamdi Nwokolo, confirmed that the company petitioned the police.
He said: “The allegations were grave, so we petitioned the police to investigate the matter.
“If the police find criminal defamation against Chioma Egodi and then arrest her, is it a crime that we sought the law?”
Emeka Offor vs Boniface Okonkwo
An activist and social commentator, Boniface Okonkwo, has been in detention since January 3 when he was arrested following a complaint by businessman Sir Emeka Offor.
He is yet to the granted bail as Justice Vincent Agbata of the High Court sitting in Nnewi, Anambra State, did not sit last week.
Police spokesperson in Anambra, Tochukwu Ikenga, gave an insight into why Okonkwo was detained.
He said: “In one breath, he (Okonkwo’s lawyer) claimed his client merely criticised the complainant (Offor).
“Yet, he admitted that his client published on a social media space that the meter manufacturing company commissioned by the Vice President at Oraifite, an event witnessed by many dignitaries from all walks of life, was an empty warehouse decorated to deceive the people!
“How more destructive can an activist be?”
Emeka Offor vs Chude Nnamdi
A social media user, Chude Nnamdi, was arrested in Anambra and transported to Abuja by officers attached to the police cybercrime unit.
The police later said the matter was linked to a tweet by Nnamdi that allegedly cast Offor in a bad light.
In the tweet, the defendant claimed that Offor had been engaged by the then president-elect to beg Peter Obi to accept the result of the February 25, 2023, general election.
The tweet read: “So @officialBAT called Emeka Offor to beg Peter Obi to accept the rigged result.
“If he is sure the people voted for APC and he won the election, why is he running around pleading with everyone to help beg Peter Obi to accept the result?”
Nnamdi was arraigned for alleged cyberstalking before Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Blogger charged
A Bayelsa-based blogger, Bara Ogidi, was charged with cyberstalking under the Cyber Crime Act.
The State Security Service (SSS) arraigned him over an alleged false report against the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), Simbi Wabote.
Ogidi, a publisher of an online new media, Tracknews, was charged with two counts of cyberstalking, contrary to Section 24(1)b of the Cybercrime Act.
Speaker’s ominous warning
House of Representatives Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, during a rare press conference last Thursday, faulted alleged false reports against Femi Gbajabiamila, his predecessor and Chief of Staff to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The Speaker warned against misinformation and defamation, saying there were plans to strengthen defamation laws.
He said: “I invite Nigerians to engage critically with us on important national issues. In fact, we encourage and welcome criticisms, but these must be constructive and targeted at building national unity and cohesion and advancing development.
“However, while we encourage freedom of expression and constructive dialogue, we must also be wary of the dangers of fake news and campaigns of slander and defamation, especially against the President and senior government officials.
“There has been a rise in defamation campaigns on social media involving the deliberate dissemination of false and misleading information with the intent to harm the reputation of individuals or organisations.
“These campaigns often target political opponents, seeking to undermine their credibility, integrity, and public trust.
“The recent unjustified and baseless allegations against…Gbajabiamila points to the danger of unfettered and unaccountable social media.
“Such acts not only undermine the integrity of our democracy but also erode the fabric of our national unity.
“Yet, Femi is just one of millions of Nigerians who suffer cyberbullying and coordinated campaigns of defamation daily. Too many victims are not as powerful as him to defend themselves…
“I urge the security agencies to work diligently and swiftly to investigate all matters he has raised in his letter to them and inform Nigerians of their findings.
“If not found guilty, these agencies must fish out those responsible for the character assassination and ensure they are brought before the law.
“Often, the perpetrators of such damaging acts are ignorant of the illegality of their actions.
“Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act states that a person who publishes any defamatory matter, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false, is liable to imprisonment for two years.
“Also, Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 provides that any person who knowingly or intentionally uses computer systems or networks to defame, insult or engages in actions that slander or cause danger shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7million or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
“Furthermore, Section 24(2) of the Act states that any person who intentionally transmits any communication through a computer system to bully or threaten or harass another person…commits an offence under the Act and shall be liable on conviction to 10 years and for a minimum fine of N25million.
“The Criminal Code also criminalises defamation and makes it an offence to threaten a person with an injury to his person, reputation, or property.
“In view of the above, the House intends to strengthen libel, slander, and defamation legislation in this regard.
“To avoid being misquoted or quoted out of context, I wish to make it categorically clear that the House has no intention to stifle free speech.”
Social media a menace, says Gbajabiamila
Speaking at a book launch last week, Gbajabiamila described social media as a “societal menace”.
He argued that if left unchecked, abuse of social media has the potential of causing “great danger” not just to society, but the individuals at the receiving end of damaging claims.
“Who do you hold more responsible – the purveyor of the fake news or the person who reads and believes it? The jury is out on that,” he said.
Recalling that the House under his leadership attempted to regulate social media but was resisted by civil society, he said the chickens have come home to roost, adding: “Social media is a menace and it must be regulated”.
But X (formerly Twitter) users were quick to remind Gbajabiamila of his tweet on March 1, 2014, in which he criticised the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) for accepting over 520,000 applications for 4,556 available job openings.
With the applicants trooping to the 60,000 capacity Abuja National Stadium for an interview, a stampede occurred, resulting in the death of about seven applicants.
The NIS was said to have made over half a billion naira from the application fees.
Gbajabiamila, who was in the opposition then, tweeted: “Now if obtaining mny from 520k pple for 4.5k jobs isn’t 419 someone needs to tell me what is!! Vagabonds in Power n Babarians at the gate!!”
Gbajamiala’s critics noted that he did not call for social media regulation then because it served his purposes, but he now sees the need to do so because he is at the receiving end.
Is free speech in danger?
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act was signed into law on May 15, 2015, by former President Goodluck Jonathan at the twilight of his administration.
The law was enacted based on the understanding that threats to information and communication technology are a danger to national security, capable of affecting the country’s “economic, political, and social fabric”.
The Act seeks to ensure the protection of critical national information infrastructure, promote cybersecurity and protect computer systems and networks, electronic communications, data and computer programmes, intellectual property and privacy rights.
But, a lawyer, Pelumi Olajengbesi, Managing Partner at Law Corridor, fears the law has been manipulated to suppress press liberty and freedom of expression.
However, Olajengbesi, in quotes published by Sahara Reporters, maintained that the political class manipulated the provisions of the law to police journalists and suppress freedom of expression and thoughts while abandoning its primary objectives.
Stressing the need for journalists to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession, he said: “It is crucial to caution that the imperative of enacting the Cybercrime Act was not to regulate the activities of journalists.
“Journalism is a renowned and decent profession with high ethical standards.
“It is one of the noblest and oldest since the days of Rome circa 59 Before Christ.
“However, no one who indulges in the activities criminalised by the Cybercrime Act can be rightly referred to as a journalist.
“That said, it is sad to note that the government and the political class in Nigeria have deliberately manipulated the provisions of the Cybercrime Act to police journalists and suppress freedom of expression and thoughts while abandoning the primary objective of the law.
“Authorities in government have attempted to silence opposition views in the online media through arbitrary interpretation and abuse of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2015, particularly Section 24.”
Olajengbesi, therefore, called on the government to apply the law properly.
He also stressed the need for media houses, firms and practitioners to operate by the superintending ethics of the profession.
Lawyers seek balance
Lawyers have stressed the need to preserve the right to constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
A legal expert, Jonathan Iyieke, emphasised that freedom of expression or speech is inalienable, imperative and undeniable, especially in a truly democratic society.
“Even God in his infinite supremacy never denied Adam and Eve this quintessential right to speech,” he noted.
According to him, Section 24(1) of the Cybercrime Act received a judicial blessing in the case of Okedara v. Attorney General of Federation (2019) LCN 12768 where the Court of Appeal upheld its constitutionality.
Iyieke said: “Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrime Act is against the spirit and intendment of Section 39 of 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“In my opinion, any law that seeks to restrict freedom of speech must be exhaustively exhumed and cremated on the ground that it’s not only unconstitutional, it’s an anathema in a civil society.
“To hold otherwise is to resurrect and celebrate an otherwise draconian, barbaric and vindictive attitude of the then military Governor of old Bendel State in 1973 who, with a broken bottle, shaved the head of Minere Amakiri, a reporter with Daily Observer for reporting the plight of teachers on 30th July 1973 which was his 31st birthday. God forbid.
“Though the court further held that free speech cannot be taken away ‘except for the purposes of preserving the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons’, it failed to interrogate whether the provisions of the Act were reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
The lawyer highlighted the fundamental nature of free speech, including the Supreme Court case in Arthur Nwankwo v. State (1985) 6 NCLR 228, 237.
The Supreme Court held in the case: “The decision of the founding fathers of the present Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech which must include freedom to criticise should be praised and any attempt to derogate from it except as provided by the Constitution must be resisted.
“Those in public office should not be intolerant of criticism in respect of their office so as to ensure that they are accountable to the people.
“They should not be made to feel that they live in an ivory tower and therefore belong to a different class.
“They must develop thick skins and where possible, plug their ears with wool if they feel too sensitive or irascible.”
Iyieke believes that Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrime Act 2015 conflicts with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
The lawyer said: “It is, in my opinion, inconsistent with constitutional provision in Section 1 (1) (supremacy of the Constitution) and as such it should be declared null to the extent of its inconsistency.
“Section 1 (3) of 1999 constitution (if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail) should, therefore, be invoked.”
‘Injurious publication a civil wrong’
Associate Partner at Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL), Collins Okeke, also thinks that Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 24 (1)b of the Cybercrime Act violate Section 39 (1) of the Constitution concerning the media.
He urged the press to challenge these laws.
Okeke, also legal director at the Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), said: “These provisions are relics of our colonial pasts. The colonialists used them to intimidate and avoid transparency and accountability.
“Unfortunately, our politicians have retained them in our law books to prevent citizens and journalists from holding them accountable.
“False or injurious publication is a civil wrong and so ought to be resolved by civil remedy in the form of damages or a public apology.
“How it has been elevated to a crime is what I struggle to understand.
“I have argued that the remedy to false speech is more speech.
“If more information is available or provided by people in government, there will be no room or opportunity for false or misleading speech.
“The solution for me is for journalists to challenge these provisions.
“Success may be far-fetched given the state of the judiciary, but it is still worth trying.
“These provisions ought to be struck down to enable journalists to undertake their constitutional responsibility unhindered.”
‘Free speech not absolute’
A legal expert, Ige Asemudara, noted that while the right to free speech should be protected, there is a need for limits.
He said: “Section 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Act is one of such limitations that the law has imposed on free speech. Whether it is an excessive containment of that right is debatable.
“If you look at the wording of that section, it talks about people who publish hatred or things that are not true or offensive.
“I do not exactly think that it offends free speech. Rather, it is a way of moderating people’s excesses considering how people have abused social media.
“If you allow people to carry on in the name of free speech and they then go online to say all sorts of things that are not true, that can propel hatred, instigate disharmony and enmity and all of that, and the society will lose its concord.
“So, if you charge somebody for such offence, you must prove that that person knows that the publication is false, or the person published it intentionally when he knows that it is not true.
“So lies can have other ramifications. So, I do not see them (the provisions) as taking away free speech.
“Rather, it’s a way of legitimately restricting human conduct.”
Asemudara called for a balanced application of these laws to prevent deploying them as tools of oppression.
“We can think of how we can moderate these restrictions, but the law has not conceived any rights without a limitation,” he added.
A lawyer, teacher and journalist, Dr. Adewale Kupoluyi, noted that while some use the media responsibly, others use what is supposed to be an unbiased umpire for dangerous political and malicious reasons by maligning people’s character or exploiting them for selfish purposes.
According to him, the new media have been deployed, to an extent, to enhance transparency and accountability.
But, on a larger scale, he added, what is seen is all manner of abuses in the name of whistle-blowing, citizen journalism and breaking-the-news syndrome.
Kupoluyi said: “Everyone is now a journalist and crave for cheap popularity.
“All manner of information now go to the public space unhindered.
“As it is, the government cannot totally control social media because of legal restrictions.
“What is then easier and actionable is to have in place, legislation such as the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act and others to fill the vacuum created by old laws that had existed before the emergence of the New Media.
“Defamation is a serious malfeasance that can permanently destroy people’s reputation and good standing.
“That is why provisions like Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act seem to be invoked to criminalise defamation.
“Now, the argument is, should defamation be criminalised?
“The answer to this complex question is neither here nor there, depending on where your interest lies.”
The lawyer noted that many journalists and media organisations are sometimes unduly prevented from performing their lawful duties through what he called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).
These, he explained, “are litigation intended to intimidate, censor, and silence critics by putting heavy burdens on them through the high cost of legal defence in a bid to discourage them from maintaining their stance, criticism or position”.
Kupoluyi added: “Journalists acting responsibly should not be gagged and prevented from doing their work legitimately.
“But, where there are excesses, the government would not fold its arms and allow breaches; all in the name of freedom of expression.
“Remember, freedom of expression, as provided for under Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, is not absolute.
“Even though the constitution is the grundnorm, there are limits to such freedoms to prevent abuses and trampling on the rights of others.
“For instance, sections 39(3) and 45 make room for restriction of the right of freedom of expression by preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, and for maintaining the authority and independence of the courts.
“Therefore, media establishments should always seek legal advice and put a lot of resources into the training and retraining of their journalists to shield them from frivolous prosecutions.”
He also called for a careful weighing of scale in deciding cases brought under the sections.
“In a nutshell, what is important is to ascertain the motive for actions and inaction.
“If the journalist is being mischievous in the course of doing his work, there is the need for control or sanctions.
“But, when this cannot be established, the government cannot hide under the disguise of public safety and national security to prevent dissemination of information.
“Hence, the ability to distinguish between the extremes could constitute a legal dilemma,” Kupoluyi added.
ECOWAS Court: section arbitrary
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court had declared Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act as unlawful.
It gave the ruling in a suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
The court held that Section 24 is contrary to the rule of law; therefore, the Police cannot charge anyone under it.
SERAP said: “The ECOWAS Court has ruled that Section 24 of Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act is vague, arbitrary, and unlawful.
“So, it is contrary to the rule of law for the police to charge anyone with supposed ‘cyberstalking’. Section 24 is invalid!”
Nigeria’s Supreme Court may ultimately need to strike down or interpret the section to prevent abuse in its application.
To contain the menaces of intellectual property theft and cybercrimes across the country, the police have urged Nollywood artists for support.
Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIG) in charge of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Annex, Alagbon, Idowu Owohunwa, made the please while playing host to popular actress and producer, Funke Akindele, at the weekend in Lagos.
Akindele and her team had visited the AIG to thank him over the arrest of an alleged syndicate involved in the piracy and illegal online streaming of her recent movie, “A Tribe Called Judah” a statement by the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO) of the department, ASP Aminat Mayegun, said yesterday.
She said Owohunwa described their visit as a source of motivation to him and the dedicated personnel of the department, whose efforts most times were not recognized nor appreciated.
“AIG Idowu Owohunwa emphasized the significance of the entertainment industry as a positive representation of Nigeria globally and assured Funke Akindele that the case would be diligently prosecuted to serve the interest of justice. “He called upon Funke Akindele to utilize her dominant influence to rally industry stakeholders in support of the Nigeria Police in the drive to present a common front against piracy and cybercrime,” said Mayegun.
According to the statement, Akindele commended the AIG for exhibiting professional, courageous and resilient leadership which aided in the investigation, arrest, and ongoing prosecution of six suspects that were involved in the piracy and unlawful online streaming of her movie and that of Toyin Abraham.
“While also commending the Investigation Team for the prompt and meticulous manner they undertook the investigation and subsequent arraignment of the suspects in court, Actress Funke Akindele expressed her immense gratitude to the Nigeria Police for their commitment to the war against elements that are bent on destroying the movie industry and infringing on their copyright.
“She explained that despite being abroad when the case was reported, she closely followed the investigation and on her return to the country, she deemed it necessary to personally come to express her appreciation to the leadership and detectives of FCID (Annex), Lagos for their exceptional investigative efforts in the case.
“She acknowledged that she incurred huge revenue losses due to the criminal activities of the offenders but took solace in the hope that the arrest and prosecution of the suspects will not only ensure that justice is served but will send a clear and strong message that would deter others from similar crimes in future.
“Akindele urged the Nigeria Police Force to continue supporting the industry in its fight against elements that utilize the cyberspace to pirate their works and earn undeserved financial rewards at the detriment of the movie producers,” Mayegun said.
The ongoing data recapturing of pension contributors and retirees by Pension Fund Administrators (PFAs) nationwide is meant to protect pension clients against cybercrime and other fraud, the Managing Director, IEI-Anchor Pension Managers Limited, Mr. Glory Etaduovie, has said.
Etaduovie in a paper titled: National Data Base Harmonisation and Pension Data Recapture, made available to journalists in Lagos stated that since last year, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) has been upbeat about data recapture of PFAs existing clients and to streamline future contributors’ registration in a move to have an accurate database.
He emphasised the need for national ICT database, noting that information, like communication, is the lifeblood of a nation.
He said that with the massive pension fund accumulation and its fast pace of growth drawing attention, individuals with bad intentions are exploring how to penetrate the fund structure, hence, the need to enhance cyber security.
He pointed out that aside individuals with bad intent, pension fund is now a veritable source of funding and development in the country.
The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) has arrested 10 persons for alleged cybercrime, popularly called `Yahoo, Yahoo’, at Ojodu Berger, Lagos.
The state NSCDC Commandant, Mr. Tajudeen Balogun, told reporters yesterday that they were arrested following a tip-off.
He alleged that the gang leader was a 100-level Accounting student of a private university in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.
Balogun said the suspects were between the ages of 19 and 29.
He alleged that one Toyota Camry saloon car with number-plate EPE406FN, nine laptops, 16 phones, two debit cards and an Airtel modem were recovered from them.
Also recovered from them were one piece of Orange Wi-Fi, 11 laptop chargers, two extension boxes, and substances suspected to be Indian hemp and charms.
Balogun said: “On May 22, the state command got a piece of information about a case of abduction, assault and cybercrime.
“This was as a result of a tip-off by a victim, Demini Emmanuel.
“The victim claimed he was abducted, assaulted and forced to engage in cybercrime by the suspects since January 2019.
“The command swung into action and arrested 10 suspects at 14b, Animashaun Street, inside Progressive Estate, Ojodu Berger, Lagos’’.
He said the suspects would be prosecuted.
Balogun advised parents, landlords and the public to report suspicious activities in their areas to the Corps and other security agencies.
The 22-year-old gang leader, said he had been in the business for more than a year, stressing that he made more than N3million between January and April.
He said the other suspects were found in his house because they were learning the `job’ from him.
The suspect said he did not kidnap them as alleged by the NSCDC officials.
Detectives from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibadan zonal office got a dose of ‘corruption fighting back’ on Wednesday, when suspected internet criminals unleashed a dangerous dog on them to resist arrest.
Upon receipt of intelligence reports and launch of preliminary investigations into their alleged illegal activities, officers of the commission had stormed the suspects’ hideout at Agara area of Ibadan at the early hours of the day.
But instead of allowing them in after proper introduction, one of the suspects instructed the guard to release the dog to attack the men.
The trick, however, failed to work. It rather tasked the detectives to display their dexterity and professionalism. They were able to dislodge the dangerous dog, carry out extensive search on the apartment and effect arrest of the suspects.
Again, out of desperation to conceal useful information that could help the commission in their investigation, one of the suspects smashed his android phone with the intention to destroy the gadget and deny access to the data therein.
The attempt equally failed as the operatives took possession of the broken phone and deposited it with the forensic unit for proper analysis of the recovered data.
The second-in-command to the zonal head, Bright Igeleke, who led the operation, described the experience as part of the ‘hazards of the job’.
Suspects arrested in the operation are Paul Afolabi, Balogun Ibrahim Adebayo, Izu Ibobo Chukwunalu, Abe Tolulope, Onifade Gidion Idowu, Komolafe Tosin and Igwe Kinsley Otuu.
Similarly, operatives from the zone earlier in the week arrested four other suspects over their alleged involvement in cyber-related offences.
The suspects – Adebisi Adewale Michael and Olowolayemo Olakunle Quddus. Opaaje Oluwatobi Isiah and Itowe Kelvin Olutayo – are now under interrogation, and are giving useful information to the operatives in the quest to unravel the extent of their illegal activities.
Information sieved from them so far reveals that they use the internet to defraud unsuspecting victims while posing online as white ladies and foreign military officers.
At the point of their arrest, a Lexus car, ipones, other brands of phones and international passports were recovered from them.
All the arrested suspects will be charged to court as soon as investigations are concluded, a source in the commission hinted.
A cyber Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist, Mr Yusuf Aweda, has said cybercrime is a major threat the Internet users.
According to him, millions of Internet users’ Information have been stolen by disgruntled elements.
Aweda spoke at a Scholars/Awards Day organised by the Academic Excellence Initiative (AEI), a non-governmental organisation.
Speaking on Digital Transformation trends in education, the information and technology expert said the users’ information stolen within the past few years had negatively affected many nations’ economies.
He said the cost of global crime rate will reach $6 trillion by 2021 if nothing is done to the prevalent of the menace.
“The global cost of cybercrime will reach $6 trillion by 2021. According to the Ponemon Institute’s 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study, Global Analysis organisations that suffered at least one breach in 2016 lost an average of $4 million,” he said.
The technology specialist added that cybersecurity breaches are caused by malicious intent by the hackers, saying the cost will rise by 48 per cent with a financial cost of $11.5 billion in 2019.
“Forty-eight per cent of data security breaches are caused by acts of malicious intent. Cybersecurity ventures expect ransomware costs will rise to $11.5 billion in 2019. Cybercrime will cost more than triple the number of unfilled cybersecurity jobs by 2021,” he said.
On how cybersecurity can be fought and won, Aweda urges “vigilant when browsing websites, flag and report suspicious emails; never click on unfamiliar links or ads, use a VPN whenever possible and ensure websites are safe before entering credentials.”
He enjoined the Nigerian service providers to ensure the 2014 Cybercrime Law is adhered to ensure safer cyberspace for users.
“It is the duty of every service provider to comply with all the provisions of the Act and render assistance howsoever in any inquiry or proceeding in the court of law,” he said.
Chairman of Alimosho Local government, Mr Jelil Sulaiman, said the local government has been trying to make digitalisation a reality in schools within the council while calling on the state government to ensure that school syllabus is designed to meet global digitalisation demand.
“The Lagos state government should move school syllabus towards digitalization of our primary and secondary school syllabus so that their knowledge base will meet the demand of the 21st-century requirement,” he said.
The Director of AEI, Mr Faheed Olajide, said it is a fact that the world has become a global village, hence the need for all to embrace digitalisation of the education sector.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibadan Zonal Office has arraigned one Oluwarore Omotomiwa Timileyin (a.k.a Stephen Kimble, Eldred Lola) on a seven-count charge bordering on forgery, obtaining under false pretence and possession of fake documents.
Oluwarore, who claimed to be a fashion designer, is standing trial before Justice P.I Ajoku of the Federal High Court 1, sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State.
The accused reportedly used different false representations online to defraud unsuspecting victims to the tune of thousands of United States Dollars.
One of the charges reads, “That you Oluwarore Omotomiwa Timileyin (a.k.a Stephen Kimble, a.k.a Eldered Lola) sometime in March, 2019, at Ibadan, Oyo State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court, had in your possession, documents in your Google Account with email stephenkimble876@gmail.com containing false pretence and financial thereby committed an offence contrary to Sections 6 and 8(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.”
Some of the charges, according to the charge sheet, are contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) and punishable under Section (1) (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act No. 14 of 2006.
Oluwarore, however, pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Following the prosecution counsel’s prayer for a trial date on account of the accused person’s ‘not guilty’ plea, the court adjourned to May 27, 2019 for trial, and ordered that defendant be remanded in prison custody pending the determination of his case.
