The Nigerian Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the remand of Daniel Ojukwu, a journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ). Human rights groups say the move raises “concerns about the use of judicial processes to intimidate journalists and undermine the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in Nigeria.”
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered Ojukwu’s remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre for 21 days. Ojukwu’s offence, according to FIJ, was exposing alleged corruption and the diversion of public funds involving Adejoke Orelope-Adefulire, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Sustainable Development Goals (SSAP-SDGs).
Justice Abdulmalik issued the order in a 12-count cyberstalking case brought by the Nigerian Police against Ojukwu and Fisayo Soyombo, FIJ’s founder.
How It Started
The Intelligence Response Team (IRT) of the then Inspector-General of Police abducted Daniel Ojukwu on May 1, 2024. The officers initially held him at the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Panti, in Lagos, before transferring him to the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre (NPF-NCCC) in Abuja.
His whereabouts remained unknown until May 3, which coincided with the commemoration of World Press Freedom Day. While Nigerian journalists joined the rest of the world in advocating press freedom, Ojukwu remained in police detention.
His phone was switched off, and the police kept him incommunicado until his family eventually learnt about his detention at Panti, Lagos. There, they were informed that the authorities accused him of violating the 2015 Cybercrime Act.
For several days, the police denied Ojukwu access to legal representation and remained silent about his arrest. This approach contravenes section 36 subsection 6 of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that every person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to be informed promptly, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature of the offence. It also guarantees the right to defend themselves in person or through legal practitioners of their choice.
However, Ojukwu is not the first journalist to suffer such treatment. Segun Olatunji experienced a similar fate. On March 10, 2024, about 10 soldiers abducted Segun Olatunji, Editor of First News and a former Kaduna Bureau Chief of The PUNCH, from his home in the Iyana Odo, Abule Egba area of Lagos State.
His family did not know his whereabouts until the International Press Institute (IPI) revealed that personnel of the Defence Intelligence Agency were responsible for his abduction.
Shockingly, hours after the committee disclosed this information, the Nigerian military admitted that it had the journalist in its custody. Olatunji regained his freedom after 13 days of illegal detention.
The Troubling Picture
In February 2026, Vice President Kashim Shettima boldly claimed that authorities had not harassed a single journalist in Nigeria since the administration took office. This blatant denial prompted the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) to accuse the Nigerian government of attempting to erase documented abuses from public consciousness. CPJ said authorities had assaulted, arrested or harassed at least 91 journalists since President Bola Tinubu assumed office on May 29, 2023.
One of the notable cases involved the abduction of Sodeeq Atanda, a journalist with FIJ. Last December, security operatives first arrested Adenike Atanda, the journalist’s wife, and their nine-month-old baby at their home. The police detained them for hours at the Owutu Police Station in Ikorodu, Lagos, and coerced Mrs Atanda into calling her husband to falsely claim that their child was ill and had been hospitalised.
Since President Tinubu assumed office, authorities have recorded at least 231 verified attacks on journalists, according to the Press Attack Tracker (PAT), a project of the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) that tracks, verifies and documents cases of press freedom violations. Analysts say the current wave of repression is particularly worrying because authorities are shifting from physical violence to weaponising laws against journalists. The case of Daniel Ojukwu illustrates this growing trend.
The Liberalist has reported how the police and other state security agencies, such as the Department of State Services (DSS), often act as private militias for powerful individuals and public officials who feel embarrassed by factual reporting. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also highlighted this trend in its latest press freedom index, warning that authorities are weaponising the Cybercrimes Act to silence dissent.
Although Nigeria improved its position in the latest RSF Press Freedom Index, climbing to 112th from 122nd, the country scored just 37 points out of 100 in the safety indicator. Similarly, according to the latest Freedom in Africa Report (F[in]AR), Nigeria recorded a slight improvement, scoring 6 out of 10, compared with 5 in 2025.
However, the report warned that “stronger scores do not necessarily mean journalists are free from political, legal or economic pressure.” It says the overall pattern sees press freedom gaining sufficient ground in parts of Africa, but political pressure, intimidation and restrictions on independent journalism continue to define the media environment.
The ‘Lawfare’
The use of law to intimidate journalists is growing ground across African countries. A February 2026 report by the Thomson Reuters Foundation reveals a trend in Kenya where the law is increasingly being weaponised to silence dissent and suppress public interest reporting.
Titled “Weaponising the Law: Threats to Media Freedom in Kenya,” the report documents a systematic shift toward lawfare, which is defined as the deliberate misuse of legal provisions to intimidate, exhaust, or economically weaken media actors.
The report identified the abuse of court processes as a central mechanism for targeting journalists, with 24 percent of survey respondents identifying it as a top threat. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits are frequently used by powerful political and private actors to burden journalists with resource-intensive litigation intended to deter scrutiny rather than seek justice, the report reveals.
