SaharaReporters reports that Ijele’s case has been ongoing since April 2024, when he was detained at Ikoyi Prison in Lagos on allegations of cybercrime.

Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has faulted the continued detention of Chizorom Harrison Ofoegbu, popularly known as Ijele by Evangelist Ebuka Obi, the spiritual director of Zion Movement Outreach Ministry located in Lagos State.

SaharaReporters reports that Ijele’s case has been ongoing since April 2024, when he was detained at Ikoyi Prison in Lagos on allegations of cybercrime.

Despite meeting his bail conditions, his release has been hindered due to another case filed against him in Awka, Anambra State.

But reacting to the continued incarceration of the social media influencer, Falana explained that the Federal High Court has ruled that by the Community reading of Section 251 (1) (S), (3) of the CFRN and Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act, it has no jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation.

According to the senior lawyer, the court also ruled that the offence of using social media handle to make online publications with the intention to cause hatred and damage the reputation of any person is no longer provided for under the existing law.

According to him, the court however ruled that it has jurisdiction to try the offence of cyberstalking vide online publication against the person of the evangelist which put him to fear of death under sections 24 (2) (c) (i) (ii) and (3) of the Act as amended.

He said, “The section provides for the offence of cyberstalking where a person knowingly or intentionally sends a message by means of computer systems or network that is pornography or which he knows to be false for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life or causing such message to be sent and where a person knowingly or intentionally transmits or causes the transmission of any communication through a computer system or network to bully, threaten or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person.”

Count 1 of the charges against Ijele reads: “Conspiracy to commit the offence of using social media handle to make online publication with the intention to cause hatred and damage the reputation of the Evangelist which is not provided for under the existing law.”

Regarding this, Falana said, “It has been argued for the Defendant that the offence of using social media handle to make false online publication against the person of Evangelist Ebuka Obi, with the intention to cause hatred and damage to the reputation of the Evangelist is not known to law and that the Defendant cannot be accused of conspiring to commit a non-existent offence.

“No doubt, the alleged offence in Count one (1) of the Amended Charge is conspiracy to commit the offence of using social media handle to make online publication with the intention to cause hatred and damage the reputation of the Evangelist which is not provided for under the existing law.

“The alleged offence in Count one (1) of the Amended Charge is conspiracy to commit the offence of using social media handle to make online publication with the intention to cause hatred and damage the reputation of the Evangelist which is not provided for under the existing law.

“Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act, 2015 which mentions or talks about causing hatred has been amended in the 2024 Amendment where such words have been removed. The law is that one cannot be successfully accused of conspiracy to commit a principal offence that is non-existent.”

Falana further noted that on whether a person can be charged with conspiracy to commit an offence which is unknown to the law, the appellate court in Alao-Akala v. FRN (2021) LPELR – 56126 (CA) pp. 33-34, para F held as follows: “’What Section 22(4) of the I.C.P.C Act criminalized as an offence is award of contract without budget provision, approval and cash backing and not awarding contract without budget provision simpliciter. The offence the Appellant is charged with is unknown to the law.

“The Charge of conspiracy in this case cannot stand because what was alleged to have been agreed upon is not an offence under any law. Therefore, I am of the view that the Appellant cannot be lawfully and properly charged for conspiracy since no unlawful act was established and no agreement to do an illegal act was established by the Prosecution.

“On the footing of the foregoing, I hold that count one (1) in the Amended Charge is incompetent – Aluko J.’”

Count 2 reads: “Offence of Cyberstalking vide on-line publication against the person of the Evangelist which put him to fear of death.”

“’On Count 2, this relates to the offence of Cyberstalking vide on-line publication against the person of the Evangelist which put him to fear of death. This offence can well be placed within the provision of Section 24 (1) (a) (b) and 2(a) of the Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 (As Amended) 2024.

“’The above provision of the Act provides for the offence of Cyber stalking where a person knowingly or intentionally sends a message by means of   computer systems or network that is pornography or which he knows to be false for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life or causing such message to be sent and where a person knowingly or intentionally transmits or causes the transmission of any  communication through a computer system or network to bully, threaten  or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm to another person. The offence under Count 2 is punishable under sections 24 (2) (c) (i) (ii) and (3) of the Act,’ – Aluko J.

Regarding Count 3, he said, “On criminal allegation of defamation by publication with the intention to annoy, expose the Evangelist to hatred, contempt, ridicule, to disparage, lower his estimation and damage his reputation before the right thinking members of the public; offence was charged pursuant to Sections 373 and 374 of the Criminal Code Act.

“The main gist and summary of the offence under Count 3 of the Amended Charge is a criminal allegation of defamation by publication with the intention to annoy, expose the Evangelist to hatred, contempt, ridicule, to disparage, lower his estimation and damage his reputation before the right-thinking members of the public.

“I agree with the senior counsel that this offence particularly as it relates to defamation by whatever means is not one of the offences over which is court can exercise its criminal jurisdiction.

“Defamation is not one of the items over which jurisdiction is conferred on his Court vide Section 251(1) of CFRN or in respect of which the National Assembly can be said to have conferred this court with such jurisdiction.

“Therefore, by the Community reading of Section 251 (1) (S), (3) of the CFRN and Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise over the offence of defamation.

“’Even in civil cases, there are a plethora of judicial pronouncements to the effect that this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over claims of torts of defamation. See Omon & Ors v. Ekpa (2019) LPELR – 47978 (CA) pp. 15 – 19, para A. To the extent of the foregoing, Count 3 in the Amended Charge is incompetent,’ – Aluko J.”