The reported arrest of Cross River businessman and social media commentator, Denis Odama, in Lagos has continued to raise questions across Cross River State, especially over what exactly may have triggered the police action against him.
According to reports, two police officers from Cross River reportedly travelled to Lagos and appeared at the Festac Town Divisional Police Headquarters, allegedly seeking to take Odama back to Cross River.
The reported reason given at the police station was that Odama had allegedly been “bullying the Governor of Cross River State, Prince Bassey Edet Otu, on social media.”
However, at the time of this report, there has been no public evidence showing that Governor Otu personally ordered the arrest.
That distinction is important.
The question before Cross Riverians is therefore not simply whether Odama criticised the governor. He clearly did. The bigger question is: did anything he posted amount to a criminal offence under Nigerian law?
And this is where the matter becomes more complicated.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗢𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆
One of the posts now attracting attention is Odama's criticism of the government's handling of electricity in Bekwarra.
Sharing an old post, Odama referred to an earlier promise concerning the restoration of electricity in Bekwarra and questioned why the area was still without power.
He accused those given money to fix the electricity problem of giving excuses and alleged that the governor had effectively given his friends money through contracts.
In simple terms, the post appeared to be a political criticism of the governor's handling of the electricity situation in Bekwarra.
The post also attracted significant engagement and shows that the issue resonated with a section of the public.
But criticism of a government project, a contract or an unfulfilled promise is not automatically the same thing as cyberbullying.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘆
Another post may provide a more interesting clue.
During the recent reshuffling of commissioners by the Cross River State Government, Odama questioned why the Commissioner for Sports and Youths Development, Agnes Atsu, was not removed, redeployed or replaced.
His post included a provocative question concerning whether the commissioner had the governor's nvde and then asked why she was not replaced with someone capable of reviving sports administration in the state.
Government supporters reportedly attacked Odama over the comment.
But the criticism did not come from Odama alone.
Cross River media personality and publisher of CrossRiverWatch, Agba Jalingo, publicly supported the substance of Odama's criticism, saying he also believed the commissioner was incompetent and should either be redeployed or sacked.
That does not automatically make Odama's wording acceptable or unacceptable. It simply shows that the underlying political argument; whether the Sports Ministry was performing was part of a wider public conversation.
The controversial question is therefore whether the authorities are treating the entire political criticism as a criminal matter, or whether there is a specific statement that investigators believe crossed the legal line.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟮𝟱 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴
Perhaps the most disturbing piece of context came before the reported arrest.
On July 25, Odama published a screenshot of a message he said someone had sent him.
The message warned him to stop talking about Governor Otu on social media, reminding him that he had a business and family in Calabar and telling him that some battles were not worth fighting.
More importantly, the sender claimed that at least four people had approached them and asked them to speak with Odama because they believed he was “walking a very thin line” and might unknowingly cross it.
Odama's response was defiant.
He said he had never deliberately insulted, abused or attacked anyone and maintained that his approach was to draw attention to issues, ask questions and acknowledge government when it did the right thing.
He also said that holding political leaders accountable was not hatred and that he would continue to raise issues respectfully.
That post is significant because it establishes that, before the reported arrest, there was already concern from some quarters about the nature of Odama's online criticism of the governor.
But the identity of the people behind that warning, their relationship with government and what they meant by “cross the line” remain unknown.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟮𝟴 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁
Three days later, on July 28, Odama made another striking post.
He told his followers that if they saw him the following day in prison uniform or no longer alive, they should not cry for him but should instead cry for what he described as a “defeated generation.”
He insisted that he had chosen to speak up but promised not to intentionally disrespect, defame or blackmail anyone.
Again, this does not prove that an arrest was imminent or that the post caused the reported police action.
But placed beside the July 25 warning, it shows that Odama himself believed his outspoken online activities had put him in a politically sensitive situation.
𝗦𝗼, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁?
From the materials available to Boki Blog Africa, there are several possibilities.
First is the continuous criticism of Governor Otu's administration.
Odama has repeatedly questioned government decisions, contracts, public services and the performance of political appointees.
His Bekwarra electricity post is one example.
Second is the Sports Ministry controversy.
This may be particularly relevant because it was a direct and provocative comment about a serving commissioner and, by implication, the governor's decision to retain her.
If government officials considered the statement offensive or defamatory, they may have regarded it as having crossed a line.
But that still leaves an important question: what specific criminal offence was allegedly committed?
Third is the accumulation of posts rather than one single publication.
It is possible that authorities were looking at a pattern of publications rather than one particular post.
That possibility, however, should be demonstrated by investigators and not assumed by the public.
Fourth is the possibility that somebody formally complained against him.
The police may have received a petition or complaint from an individual who believed Odama's publications amounted to harassment, defamation, threat or another offence.
If that is what happened, the public deserves to know the actual allegation.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝗰𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝘆?
This is where the phrase “cyberbullying” needs to be handled carefully.
Nigeria's Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act was amended in 2024.
Section 24, which deals with cyberstalking, was significantly narrowed.
Under the amended provision, sending a message that is known to be false becomes an offence in the circumstances specified by the law, including where it is intended to cause a breakdown of law and order or pose a threat to life.
The amended provision also addresses communications intended to bully, threaten or harass another person where the communication places that person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm, as well as certain threats involving kidnapping, harm or extortion.
In other words, “I criticised the governor online” is not itself the legal definition of cyberstalking.
There must be evidence that the conduct falls within the elements of an offence created by law.
This distinction matters because the 2024 amendment was itself introduced after years of criticism that the previous Section 24 was too broad and capable of being used against journalists, activists and other people expressing opinions online.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗢𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
The strongest argument for Odama is not that everything he says on social media must automatically be considered acceptable.
It is that government criticism should not, by itself, become a criminal offence.
Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
That right is not absolute. People can still be held accountable for genuine criminal conduct.
But the burden is on the authorities to identify the alleged offence and show how the person's conduct meets the legal requirements.
If Odama's posts were simply harsh political criticism, questions about government performance, complaints about electricity or demands for the removal of a commissioner, then treating those views as “bullying” without identifying a specific criminal offence would raise serious concerns.
A governor is a public official.
A commissioner is a public official.
Public officials will naturally face criticism, including criticism that may be uncomfortable, embarrassing or politically inconvenient.
The proper response to criticism in a democracy should normally be explanation, evidence, engagement and, where necessary, lawful legal action; not the use of state power simply because somebody is loud online.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀
There is another side to this conversation.
Freedom of expression does not give anybody a licence to make knowingly false allegations, issue threats, harass people or engage in conduct that clearly falls within a criminal offence.
If investigators believe Odama committed such an offence, they should identify it.
If there is a petition, let the petition be made public where legally appropriate.
If there is an allegedly criminal post, let the post be identified.
If there is evidence, let the evidence be presented.
And if a court eventually determines that an offence was committed, the law should take its course.
That is how a democracy is supposed to work.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿
For many Cross Riverians, the issue is now bigger than Denis Odama.
It is about what happens when citizens use Facebook and other social-media platforms to question those in power.
If every strong criticism of a governor can be described as bullying, then where do citizens draw the line between legitimate political criticism and criminal conduct?
And if a citizen actually crosses that line, who determines that? the governor, his aides, the police or a court of law?
That is why the reported arrest requires transparency.
The Cross River State Government should clarify whether it had anything to do with the reported police action.
The police should state the exact allegation against Odama.
And Odama should also be given the opportunity to answer any legitimate allegation made against him.
What should not happen is for Cross Riverians to be left guessing that a man was arrested simply because he criticised the governor.
Until the authorities provide a clear legal explanation, “bullying the governor on social media” remains an allegation, not a conviction and certainly not a substitute for identifying an offence under Nigerian law.
For Boki Blog Africa, the real issue is straightforward:
If Denis Odama committed a crime, tell Cross Riverians what crime he committed. If he did not, then criticism of government should remain what it is supposed to be in a democracy: criticism.
And if the government believes his allegations are false, the government has the opportunity to answer them with facts.
That is how public accountability should work.
Post A Comment: