Hon. Chima Boniface Njoku Executive Chairman Etche Local Government Area
The reported detention of Public Affairs Analyst, Mr. Nwachineke Chibuike, following a petition allegedly filed by the Executive Chairman of Etche Local Government Area, Hon. Chima Boniface Njoku, over alleged cyberbullying raises serious questions about the relationship between political office holders, citizens and the right to freely express opinions on matters of public interest.
According to the report, Nwachineke was invited to the State Criminal Investigation Department, Port Harcourt, following a petition submitted through the Chairman’s lawyers. He honoured the invitation in the company of his lawyer and was subsequently detained for further investigation before he was released.
Whatever the specific contents of the publication or statements that formed the basis of the petition, the development deserves public scrutiny because public office comes with a responsibility to tolerate criticism, answer questions and engage citizens, particularly where the issues being raised concern governance and the affairs of the people.
The issue is not whether a public official has a right to seek legal redress when genuinely defamed or when a criminal offence has allegedly been committed. Every citizen, including a local government chairman, is entitled to seek protection under the law.
The concern is whether the police should become the first response whenever a public office holder feels criticised by a citizen.
There is an important distinction between legitimate criticism, defamation and conduct that genuinely constitutes a criminal offence. That distinction should be established through due process and evidence, not simply through the political status of the person making the complaint or the person being complained against.
This is particularly important in the case of cybercrime allegations.
Nigeria’s Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 significantly narrowed the relevant provisions of Section 24. The amended law removed the earlier broad references to messages intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, insult, hatred, ill will and needless anxiety, among others. The amended provision now specifies particular circumstances, including knowingly false messages intended to cause a breakdown of law and order or pose a threat to life.
This legal development matters because criticism of a public official, by itself, should not automatically be transformed into cybercrime simply because the official finds the criticism unpleasant, embarrassing or politically inconvenient.
Indeed, the House of Representatives has previously expressed concern over the arrest, detention and harassment of journalists and others who criticise public officials, noting the constitutional importance of freedom of expression and press freedom.
Therefore, the reported action involving Nwachineke should concern every person who believes that citizens must be able to question those entrusted with public responsibilities.
Etche is not a private estate belonging to its political office holders. The local government belongs to the people, and elected or appointed officials are ultimately accountable to those people.
A chairman who receives criticism should be prepared to explain his decisions, defend his record and engage his critics with facts. Where a publication is false and defamatory, the law provides avenues for redress. Where a publication actually amounts to a criminal offence, the appropriate authorities can investigate and prosecute in accordance with the law.
But using the machinery of the state against critics can create a dangerous impression that criticism itself has become an offence.
That is not the standard citizens should expect in a democratic society.
The reported intervention that eventually resulted in Nwachineke’s release is welcome, but the larger question remains: why should a citizen who honoured a police invitation in the company of his lawyer have to spend time in detention over allegations arising from his expression of views concerning public affairs?
There is also a need for political office holders to understand that criticism is an unavoidable part of public service.
The moment a person accepts public office, his actions, decisions, policies and public conduct become legitimate subjects of public discussion. Not every criticism will be fair. Not every commentator will be right. Not every allegation will be substantiated. But the answer to criticism should ordinarily be facts, transparency and accountability.
Etche needs an environment where citizens can speak without fear, journalists can ask difficult questions, public affairs analysts can express opinions and government officials can respond with evidence.
The alternative is a political environment where people become afraid to speak and where silence is mistaken for approval.
That would serve neither Hon. Chima Boniface Njoku nor the people of Etche.
If the allegations against Nwachineke are ultimately established in accordance with the law, he should be held accountable through due process. If they are not, the episode should serve as a reminder to every public office holder that the police and other state institutions must not become substitutes for political dialogue, public accountability or legitimate debate.
The people of Etche deserve leaders who can take criticism without interpreting every opposing voice as an enemy.
They deserve a government that can defend its record in the court of public opinion.
And they deserve a political culture in which accountability is not treated as cyberbullying simply because it makes those in power uncomfortable.
About The Author
