A civic technology organisation, MonITNG, has questioned the legal basis for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecuting citizens accused of cybercrime, false information, fabrication and allegedly damaging the reputation of the anti-graft agency.<\/p>\n
The organisation, in a statement issued on Friday, said Nigerians deserve clarity on whether protecting the reputation of the EFCC through criminal prosecution falls within the statutory mandate of the commission.<\/p>\n
MonITNG\u2019s concerns followed the separate arraignment of Maryam Isah Shehu and Abubakar Shuraim Abdulhamad before the Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations bordering on cybercrime, false information and the alleged wilful tarnishing of the EFCC\u2019s image through social media publications.<\/p>\n
The defendants were arraigned on Thursday, August 20, 2026, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.<\/p>\n
Shehu faced an amended one-count charge bordering on cybercrime and alleged character assassination of the EFCC through her Instagram account, while Abdulhamad was arraigned on a one-count charge bordering on cybercrime and alleged criminal fabrication of the identity of the commission.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution, Shehu allegedly used her Instagram account, @maryamshehu, to publish allegations that EFCC officials assaulted one Ahmed Uthman on the instruction of a zonal director who allegedly collected N20 million from one Usman Iya Abbas.<\/p>\n
The EFCC alleged that the publication was deliberately made to tarnish the reputation of the commission.<\/p>\n
The charge against Shehu alleged that she intentionally sent a message through a social networking service on June 21, 2026, which was intended to tarnish the EFCC\u2019s reputation by publishing the allegations concerning the alleged assault and payment.<\/p>\n
The prosecution said the alleged conduct contravened Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, and was punishable under Section 24(2)(c)(ii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Abdulhamad, meanwhile, was accused of allegedly fabricating an image designed to resemble an official EFCC arrest placard and publishing it through his X account, @shuraimi.<\/p>\n
The prosecution alleged that the image, published sometime in May 2026 in Abuja, depicted one Sadeeq Kabeer as a suspect purportedly arrested by the EFCC, alongside the inscription: \u201cHis only crime was selling laptops at affordable price to students.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the charge, the image was fabricated to appear as an official EFCC arrest notice and was allegedly published with the intention of tarnishing the commission\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n
The prosecution similarly said the alleged offence contravened Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes Act, as amended in 2024, and was punishable under Section 24(2)(c)(ii).<\/p>\n
Both defendants pleaded not guilty when the charges were read to them.<\/p>\n
Following their pleas, prosecution counsel, Elizabeth Alabi, urged the court to fix a date for trial and sought Shehu\u2019s remand in custody pending further proceedings.<\/p>\n
Counsel to Shehu, C.O. Amalaha, told the court that the defence had filed a bail application and urged Justice Abdulmalik to grant the defendant bail on liberal terms.<\/p>\n
Similarly, counsel to Abdulhamad, Adamu K. Adamu, informed the court of his client\u2019s bail application and asked that Abdulhamad be remanded in EFCC custody pending determination of the application.<\/p>\n
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently ordered that Shehu be remanded at the Suleja Correctional Centre in Niger State, while Abdulhamad was remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre in the Federal Capital Territory.<\/p>\n
The court adjourned the case until August 31, 2026, for hearing of the defendants\u2019 bail applications and commencement of trial.<\/p>\n
Reacting to the development, MonITNG said criminal conduct involving false information or fabricated documents should be subjected to due process but expressed concern where the primary issue is allegedly damage to the reputation of a government institution.<\/p>\n
The organisation said that where a person publishes false information or fabricates an official document and the conduct constitutes an offence under the Cybercrimes Act or another applicable law, the appropriate legal process should take its course.<\/p>\n
However, it questioned the institutional basis for criminal proceedings where the central complaint is alleged defamation or reputational harm to the EFCC.<\/p>\n
\u201cDefamation is traditionally addressed through the courts, and public institutions should not be able to use criminal proceedings simply because they feel criticised or embarrassed,\u201d MonITNG said.<\/p>\n
The civic technology organisation warned that such prosecutions could have wider implications for freedom of expression and public accountability, particularly for journalists, activists and citizens who scrutinise government institutions.<\/p>\n
MonITNG said the potential \u201cchilling effect\u201d could discourage citizens and others from raising questions about the conduct of government agencies.<\/p>\n
It nevertheless acknowledged that the EFCC, like any individual or institution, has a right to seek legal redress where allegations made against it are false.<\/p>\n
The organisation stressed, however, that any such action must remain transparent, lawful and within the limits of the commission\u2019s statutory powers.<\/p>\n
MonITNG challenged the EFCC to explain the specific criminal offences for which the two defendants are being prosecuted and how the alleged attacks on the commission\u2019s reputation relate to its statutory mandate.<\/p>\n
The organisation said accountability should apply to both citizens and government agencies, arguing that citizens should be held responsible for knowingly spreading criminal falsehoods while public institutions must equally operate within the boundaries of their legal powers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe courts should determine the facts, not the power or reputation of the institution involved,\u201d MonITNG said.<\/p>\n
The organisation\u2019s concerns come amid increasing scrutiny of the use of criminal laws to prosecute individuals over statements and publications concerning government institutions.<\/p>\n
MonITNG maintained that while citizens should be held accountable where they knowingly circulate criminal falsehoods, government agencies must equally remain subject to scrutiny and operate within the limits of their statutory powers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A civic technology organisation, MonITNG, has questioned the legal basis for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecuting citizens accused of cybercrime, false information, fabrication and allegedly damaging the reputation of the anti-graft agency. The organisation, in a statement issued on Friday, said Nigerians deserve clarity on whether protecting the reputation of the EFCC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":48695,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t