On 8 May we called on the Federal Government to discontinue the prosecution of Justice Mark Chidiebere and to release him unconditionally. He is now out on bail. The prosecution has not been discontinued. On 28 September the trial resumes at the Federal High Court in Abuja, and a Nigerian citizen will again stand in the dock over what he posted online about how soldiers are fed.
How he got there
Chidiebere, who posts as Justice Crack, disappeared in late April after dropping his child at school in Abuja. On 2 May the Nigerian Army confirmed that it was holding him. Colonel Appolonia Anele, acting director of Army public relations, said he had breached the Armed Forces’ social media policy, spread misinformation, and engaged soldiers in conversations that sought to incite discontent and subversion within the ranks. “A situation where civilians cultivate vulnerable personnel towards acts of subversion has far-reaching implications on discipline and national security,” the Army said. Some soldiers were arrested alongside him and, on the Army’s own account, remained in military custody.
The posts at the centre of all this concerned soldiers’ complaints about their feeding and welfare.
On 4 May he was arraigned before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik at the Federal High Court in Abuja on three counts: circulating false information through his X account with intent to cause annoyance, ill-will and hatred, contrary to section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act; publishing material likely to cause fear and a breach of the peace, contrary to section 59 of the Criminal Code; and attempting to commit a felony, contrary to section 509. He pleaded not guilty. The court remanded him in the custody of the State Security Service.
What we said
Four days later we called publicly for the prosecution to be discontinued and for his unconditional release, on the ground that citizens have a constitutional right to demand accountability and improved working conditions for soldiers.
“The digital space must remain an open platform for citizens to express grievances and demand accountability, free from fear.”
– Festus Ogun, Foundation for Digital Justice
That position has not changed.
What has happened since
On 18 May the court granted bail in the sum of five million naira with one surety. The surety must be a federal civil servant of Grade Level 15 or above, resident within the court’s jurisdiction at a fixed address for at least four years, and must produce a tenancy agreement or certificate of occupancy, three months of salary records, a letter from a head of department, an affidavit of means and a passport photograph. Chidiebere surrendered his international passport to the court. He was released after roughly three weeks in custody.
On 25 May the prosecution opened its case. Its first witness gave evidence about audio and video recordings copied onto a flash drive, and the defence objected that the contents could not be independently verified. The matter was adjourned to 28 September.
Bail is not vindication
A release is easy to read as the end of a story. It is not the end of this one. The charges are live, the trial has begun, and a man who must lodge his passport with a court registry and produce a senior civil servant to vouch for him is not free in any ordinary sense of the word. The process itself has already done a great deal of the work that a conviction would do: weeks in detention, a public prosecution, and a clear signal to everyone watching about the cost of posting on certain subjects.
That signal is the point, and it is why we are still paying attention to a case that many people assume ended in May.
The provision at the centre of this
Section 24 criminalises messages sent to cause “annoyance”, “ill-will” and similar states of mind. In March 2022 the ECOWAS Court of Justice held that the provision was arbitrary and incompatible with Nigeria’s obligations on freedom of expression, and directed the government to bring it into conformity. It continues to appear on charge sheets.
The difficulty is not a drafting subtlety. Annoyance is not a harm the criminal law can coherently police, because the speech that annoys the powerful is precisely the speech that most needs protecting. Speech nobody objects to has never required a constitution.
What we are asking for
- That the Federal Government discontinue this prosecution.
- That section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act be brought into conformity with the ECOWAS Court’s judgment, as that court directed.
- That cybercrime and public-order provisions stop being used against complaints about welfare and conditions of service, whether the complaint comes from a soldier or from a civilian who repeats it.
We will be following the proceedings on 28 September.
This work is part of our wider programme on free expression and access to justice online. You can read more about our approach to strategic litigation and policy advocacy.
Our May statement was reported by Vanguard. Details of the arraignment and charges are drawn from TheCable and Premium Times; the Army’s statement from Vanguard; and the bail terms and the opening of the trial from Pulse and Sahara Reporters. The ECOWAS Court’s 2022 judgment on section 24 is summarised by CIVICUS Monitor.
