On Sunday 9 August, Denis Odama was arrested in Lagos over a comment he had posted on Facebook. He was moved to Calabar and remanded at the Afokang Correctional Centre. On Thursday 20 August he walked out. We were part of the legal team that worked to get him there.
What he was arrested for
The comment was posted under a Facebook post published by the Cross River State Governor, Bassey Otu, on 27 July. It made a personal insinuation involving the Governor and the state’s Commissioner for Sports, and criticised her performance in office.
For that, Mr Odama was taken into custody in Lagos, transported roughly seven hundred kilometres to Calabar, and remanded. The allegations against him included cyberbullying, defamation and incitement, brought under sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Code and section 24(2) of the Cybercrimes Act.
We hold no brief for the comment. A person can post something crude and still not belong in a correctional centre for it.
What we said
On Saturday 15 August we issued a statement calling on the police to release him immediately. Mr Odama’s advocacy for accountability, transparency and good governance in Cross River State is not a crime, and criticism of elected public officials, together with demands that they account for their conduct, is protected expression under section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.
We condemned the use of police powers and the Cybercrimes Act to suppress civic commentary, and called on the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of Cross River State and the Governor himself to secure his release and ensure full respect for his constitutional rights.
“The Cybercrimes Act must not be weaponised to suppress free expression or silence civic commentary.”
– Foundation for Digital Justice, 15 August 2026
How it ended
The complaint was withdrawn. The Governor directed the aides who had lodged it to withdraw the petition and instructed the Attorney-General to discontinue the case, and Mr Odama was discharged on 20 August. The state’s position was that the Governor had not ordered the arrest, and that the officials who complained, though his appointees, had acted in their personal capacities.
The Governor said he remained committed to upholding the right to free expression for all Cross Riverians, including those who criticise him.
What the ending does not settle
We welcomed the release. We do not accept the arrest.
Look at what actually had to happen for a citizen to get out. Not a ruling that the charge was bad. Not a finding that the comment was protected. A complaint was withdrawn, as a matter of discretion, by the people who brought it. Everything that put Mr Odama in Afokang – the arrest, the transfer, the remand – worked exactly as designed, and none of it has been disturbed. The next person is one petition away from the same eleven days.
That is what makes this a strategic-litigation problem rather than a happy ending. Mr Odama is a citizen, and he must not be intimidated into silence through the court process or through other legal actions designed to diminish public participation. When the process itself is the penalty, dropping the case at the end does not undo it.
It is also the same statute again. Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act appears here, in the prosecution of the journalist Stanley Ugagbe, in the case of the influencer known as Justice Crack, and in the prosecution of the musician Rolex Dee. Four people, four unrelated lives, one provision.
This work sits within our focus on Free Speech and Digital Rights & Freedom. You can read more about our approach to strategic litigation and policy advocacy, or report a case to us.
