Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and Amnesty International have urged President Bola Tinubu to “direct the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN to immediately withdraw the charges against activist Omoyele Sowore, X [formerly Twitter] and Facebook owners over Mr Sowore’s alleged critical and ‘anti-Tinubu’ posts on the social media platforms.”
SERAP and Amnesty International urged him to “direct the Department of State Services (DSS) and other security and law enforcement agencies to immediately stop misusing the judicial processes to silence public criticism and violate Nigerians’ rights through the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) or similar forms of harassment.”
SERAP and Amnesty International also urged him to “direct Mr Fagbemi to urgently prepare an anti-SLAPP legislation for the National Assembly, to protect Nigerians from the weaponization of the justice system by the DSS and other security and law enforcement agencies and to safeguard the right to freedom of expression.”
In the letter dated 20 September 2025 and jointly signed by SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare and AI Nigeria director Isa Sanusi, the groups said, “the weaponization of the justice system to crackdown on peaceful dissent is entirely inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations.”
The groups said, “SLAPP and criminal defamation lawsuits are neither necessary nor proportionate under the Nigerian Constitution and human rights treaties to which Nigeria is a state party. Such lawsuits generate a chilling effect that inhibits the enjoyment of human rights and circulation of ideas and information.”
According to the groups, “A lawsuit challenging the legality and compatibility of the provisions of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024 with the rights to freedom of expression and information is also pending before the ECOWAS Court.”
The groups said, “As a matter of the rule of law, the DSS and other security and law enforcement agencies cannot and should not use the amended Act to silence peaceful dissent pending the hearing and determination of the lawsuit by the court.”
The letter, read in part: “Your government has the legal obligations to prevent harassment through legal processes against Nigerians peacefully exercising their human rights, and to protect the legitimacy, independence and impartiality of the hearing of the lawsuit on the Cybercrimes Act pending before the ECOWAS Court.”
“The use of SLAPP and criminal defamation lawsuits is incompatible with the fundamental principles of a democratic society, to which Nigeria aspires. Politicians and other public officials and agencies should tolerate a high degree of criticism due to their public position in democratic societies.”
“Nigerian authorities not only have a negative obligation to abstain from unduly interfering with human rights but also have a positive obligation to facilitate and protect these rights.”
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and full enjoyment of this right is central to achieving individual freedom and to developing democracy. It is not only the cornerstone of democracy, but indispensable to a thriving civil society.”
“Any restrictions on human rights including the right to freedom of expression must meet the conditions of legality, serve as one of the legitimate purposes expressly provided for in the Nigerian Constitution and human rights treaties, and must be necessary, and proportionate to that purpose.”
“Nigerian courts and regional human rights courts have consistently held that politicians should expect far greater criticism of their actions and their functioning than ordinary individuals. These courts and other human rights mechanisms have renounced the use of defamation as a legal tool to suffocate dissent.”
“The use of SLAPP and criminal defamation lawsuits by security and law enforcement agencies with the purpose of silencing criticism is a threat to freedom of expression. SLAPP lawsuits pose serious risks to democracy and the rule of law as they limit public participation.”
“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within 7 days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, we would consider all appropriate legal actions including before the ECOWAS Court of Justice to compel your government to comply with our request in the public interest.”
“According to our information, the Federal Government recently charged Sahara Reporters publisher and activist Omoyele Sowore alongside X and Facebook owners over Mr Sowore’s recent alleged ‘anti-Tinubu’ posts on the social media platforms.”
“Two of the counts are brought under the Cybercrimes Act while the other three charges of criminal defamation, causing public fear and disturbance are brought under the Criminal Code Act.”
“The suit dated 16th September,2025, was lodged at the Federal High Court in Abuja after Sowore allegedly refused to delete certain posts allegedly critical of President Tinubu. The charges were brought on behalf of the DSS and the Federal Government by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Ministry of Justice.”
“The DSS in May 2025 also filed a SLAPP lawsuit against Professor Pat Utomi, a former presidential candidate, accusing him of attempting to illegally usurp President Bola Tinubu’s executive powers by setting up a shadow government.”
“In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the DSS alleged that Utomi’s actions posed a threat to national security and constitutional order.”
“The 2007 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress was named as the sole defendant in the suit. DSS operatives in October 2024 also filed a SLAPP lawsuit against SERAP over allegations of an unauthorised office invasion.”
“These cases illustrate the growing use of SLAPP lawsuits by the DSS and other security and law enforcement agencies in Nigeria to target, harass and intimidate Nigerians for the peaceful exercise of their human rights.”
“We are concerned that SLAPP lawsuits have a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights protected under the Nigerian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
“The Nigerian Constitution and these human rights treaties require your government to guarantee a range of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs.”
“We note your repeated commitments to uphold the fundamental rights of Nigerians including in your inaugural speech and recent address to the Joint Session of the National Assembly to mark Nigeria’s Democracy Day on 12 June 2025.”
“Specifically, in paragraph 39 of the address you stated that, ‘We dare not seek silence because the imposed silence of repressed voices breeds chaos and ill will, not the harmonics of democracy in the long term.’”
“In paragraph 40, you stated that, ‘no one should bear the brunt of injustice for merely writing a bad report about me or calling me names. Democracy requires a fair degree of tolerance for harsh words and stinging insults. Call me names, call me whatever you will, and I will still call upon democracy to defend your right to do so.’”
“We note that the ECOWAS Court of Justice had in its judgment dated 25 March, 2022 ‘ordered Nigerian authorities to stop using section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 to prosecute anyone on the grounds of insulting or stalking public officials online.’”
“The Court declared section 24 as ‘arbitrary, vague and repressive’ and ordered Nigerian authorities ‘to repeal it in conformity with the country’s human rights obligations.’ But while the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 has repealed section 24, it has not cured the arbitrary, vague and repressive nature of the provisions.”
“We are concerned that what constitutes ‘causing a breakdown of law and order’ in section 24(1)(b) of the amended legislation is unclear and undefined, threatening to punish peaceful and legitimate expression and opening the provisions up to abuse.”
“The Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024, in addition to its arbitrary, vague and repressive section 24 provisions, broadly defines ‘cyberstalking’ in section 58 as ‘a course of conduct, directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.’”
“The provisions of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 represents a harshly punitive attempt to address the problems relating to stalking and harassment and fails to provide sufficient safeguards against misuse, particularly for peaceful and legitimate exercise of human rights.”
“Whether labelled as cyberstalking, criminal defamation, seditious libel of government officials or false news, the provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 disproportionately penalize the accused and inevitably limits protected public discussion and debate on matters of legitimate public concern.”
“Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body that monitors state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its General Comment No. 34 states that in circumstances of public debate, ‘the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high.’”
“According to the Committee, ‘the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties.’”
“The Committee also stated that, ‘all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.’”
“In addition, the Committee has called on states including Nigeria to decriminalize defamation because criminal penalties are always disproportionate punishments for reputational harm.”
“The Committee has stated that defamation laws must ensure they do not serve, in practice, to contravene the rights to freedom of expression and information.”
