Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission's decision to arraign two Nigerians over social media posts allegedly damaging to its reputation has ignited a fierce legal debate about whether the anti-graft agency is exceeding its statutory mandate and weaponising the Cybercrimes Act to silence critics. Maryam Isah Shehu, a final-year student of Bayero University Kano, and Abubakar Shuraim Abdulhamad were arraigned separately on Thursday, August 20, 2026, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Shehu faces an amended one-count charge under Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, over an Instagram post alleging that EFCC officials assaulted one Ahmed Uthman under the instruction of a Zonal Director who allegedly collected N20 million from one Usman Iya Abbas. Abdulhamad was charged over a fabricated image posted on his X account, designed to resemble an official EFCC arrest placard, depicting one Sadeeq Kabeer as a suspect arrested for selling laptops at affordable prices to students.
The core legal question emerging from these prosecutions is whether the EFCC, established primarily to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, has the statutory authority to pursue individuals for allegedly damaging its reputation. The EFCC Establishment Act of 2004 empowers the commission to "prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalise economic and financial crimes". Former Minister of Sports and Youth Development, Solomon Dalung, has directly challenged the EFCC over this issue, demanding that the commission explain the legal basis for arresting and publicly parading persons over alleged "defamation of character and false publication". Dalung noted that the photographs released by the EFCC showed the accused persons holding placards stating the offence as "DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND FALSE PUBLICATION". "Not fraud. Not money laundering. Not obtaining by false pretence. Not an economic or financial crime," he wrote. Dalung further questioned: "What is the statutory basis for the EFCC assuming jurisdiction over these allegations?"
The EFCC has defended its action by invoking Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises the intentional transmission of messages that are false and intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will. The 2024 amendment specifically targets false information designed to harm reputations. Violations can attract fines of up to N7 million and imprisonment of up to three years. However, legal experts and human rights advocates have raised serious concerns about the EFCC's interpretation and application of this provision. The Nigerian Bar Association President, Afam Osigwe, SAN, has warned that the Cybercrimes Act is being misused to suppress free speech in Nigeria. "Free speech is being muzzled in Nigeria under the guise of charging people to court and investigating them for cyber crime and criminal defamation," Osigwe said. He criticised what he described as the weaponisation of the law against critics, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens who voice dissent.
The case of Maryam Shehu has drawn particular outrage due to the circumstances of her detention and the timing of her arraignment. Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, who witnessed the proceedings, disclosed that both defendants had already spent close to 30 days in EFCC detention before they were brought before the court. Shehu is a final-year student of Bayero University Kano who was due to begin her final examinations on Saturday, August 22, 2026, just two days after her arraignment. Despite this, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that Shehu be remanded at the Suleja Correctional Centre, Niger State, while Abdulhamad was remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre. The matter was adjourned until August 31, 2026, for hearing of the bail applications and commencement of trial. Sowore questioned: "What kind of institution detains a university student for nearly a month, arraigns her for allegedly cyberbullying the agency, and then seeks to keep her behind bars while her final examinations are about to begin?"
Dalung has also raised concerns about the EFCC's practice of publishing mugshots of accused persons, noting that while Section 15 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act permits photographing an arrested person for identification, "that is fundamentally different from taking the photograph, placing an official EFCC placard in the person's hands and publishing the image on the agency's public platforms". He stressed that the accused persons "are not convicted persons. They are accused persons who have pleaded not guilty," and that the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence. Dalung pointed out what he called "a striking irony": that the EFCC is prosecuting people for alleged publications said to have damaged the commission's reputation, while itself publicly releasing photographs of the accused with placards. "If reputational harm is serious enough for the state to invoke criminal law, then the state itself must be held to an even higher standard when dealing with the reputation and dignity of an unconvicted citizen," he said.
The EFCC's action in this case also raises fundamental questions about the proper avenue for addressing reputational harm. Defamation is traditionally addressed through the courts as a civil wrong, not through criminal prosecution by the very institution claiming to be defamed. The EFCC's decision to invoke the Cybercrimes Act suggests an attempt to bypass the ordinary legal framework for defamation and use the criminal justice system to protect its image. This approach has a chilling effect on citizens, journalists, activists and social media users who raise questions about the conduct of government agencies. Civil society organisations have expressed concern that excessive use of cybercrime laws could discourage public participation and create a situation where citizens begin to censor themselves for fear of legal consequences. The Cybercrimes Act, designed to fight cyber criminals, has been consistently used against different kinds of persons entirely, with legal experts condemning arrests as examples of suppressing free speech.
The EFCC has stated that the arraignment of the defendants was underscored by the need to bring alleged blackmailers, fabricators and wilful image-tarnishers of the commission to justice. However, this justification raises the question of whether the EFCC has become more concerned with its own reputation than with its statutory mandate of fighting economic and financial crimes. The commission's decision to prioritise the prosecution of social media posts over the investigation of high-profile corruption cases suggests a troubling shift in priorities. If the EFCC is serious about its mandate, it must refocus its energies on pursuing economic and financial crimes rather than hunting down citizens who post critical comments on social media. The court must determine the facts of this case based on the evidence presented, not on the power or reputation of the institution involved. The August 31 hearing will determine the fate of Shehu and Abdulhamad, but the damage to the EFCC's reputation as a fair and impartial institution may already be done.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments