It is submitted that count two of the amended charge contains an alleged offence unknown to law, as well as alleged acts that did not constitute a crime at the time of the alleged event, the implication of which same is unable to confer jurisdiction on this Honourable Court and is liable to be struck out.

A social media influencer, Mr. Chizorom Harrison Ofoegbu, popularly known as Ijele has challenged the jurisdiction of a Federal High Court in Lagos to determine its cybercrime and criminal defamation case

Ijele, through his team of lawyers led by Mr Femi Falana (SAN) in a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated June 28, 2024, urged the court to strike out the case

The case was filed by the Inspector General of Police as the Complainant/Respondent.

The Nigeria Police Force is prosecuting the case on behalf of Evangelist Ebuka Obi’s Zion Prayer Ministry Movement Outreach.

The Notice filed by his lawyers reads, “TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant/Applicant is challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on the following grounds: Count 1 of the charge alleges conspiracy is illegal as the Defendant cannot conspire against himself.

“Count 2 of the amended Charge is illegal and unconstitutional because: A) The National Assembly lacks the vires to enact laws on phonographic. materials. B) It is based on the Cybercrime Act 2015.

“Count 3 alleges offences that fall within the jurisdiction of the state High Court.”

The notice asked “whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this charge, as presently couched”

In its arguments, Falana and Co. submitted that “this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this amended charge.

“In arguing this issue, recourse shall be made to the specific grounds of objection on the basis of which the Defendant contends that the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this charge.

“It is submitted that count two of the amended charge contains an alleged offence unknown to law, as well as alleged acts that did not constitute a crime at the time of the alleged event, the implication of which same is unable to confer jurisdiction on this Honourable Court and is liable to be struck out.

“Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) states that subject as otherwise provided by this Constitution, a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law; and in this subsection, a written law refers to an Act of the National Assembly or a Law of a State, any subsidiary legislation or instrument under the provisions of a law.”

The Notice further noted that it is “a cardinal principle of our concept of criminality, and which is protected by our Constitution, that a person can only be charged with and convicted for an offence recognised by the law and in existence at the time the act alleged was committed…This is the hallowed and sacred principle of legality.

It is because of its importance and high public policy that the legislative jurisdiction of the legislature is also excluded from having retrospective effect in relation to any criminal offence whatsoever.”

“Now, what is the allegation in count two of the amended charge dated May 15, 2024?” the legal team asked.

The lawyers noted that the “thrust of the allegation in count two of the charge is that the Defendant allegedly made an online publication sometime in February 2024, against a certain Ebuka Obi of Zion Movement Outreach, purporting him to be a fake pastor and thereby damaged his reputation.

“The important question that this Honourable Court is urged to answer upon a careful examination of this allegation is whether it constitutes an offence known to law under the Cyber Crime Act upon which it has been purportedly filed or under any other law?

“We hasten to answer in the negative. While the allegation is not conceded, but even on the merit thereof, it is submitted that there is no law in Nigeria criminalises any publication that allegedly damages a person’s reputation. At best, the nominal complainant can only find remedy in a civil suit, not by filing a criminal charge.”

In another argument, the team noted, “Again, we must ask, did the alleged act of causing reputational damage by way of online publication constitutes an offence as at February 2024 when the Respondent claimed the incident occurred?

“We, once again, hasten to answer in the negative. In bringing this application, the Defendant seeks to save this Honourable Court’s precious judicial time for what is certain to be a dead end for this charge, irrespective of any attempt to amend it a thousand times.

“To further buttress the futility of count 2 of the charge, the Complainant has brought it under section 24(1)(a)(b) and (2)(a) (b) of the Cyber Crime (Prohibition and Prevention) Act (as amended) 2024.

However, there is no section 24(2) of the Act. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act talks about sending pornographic content while section 24(1)(b) of the Act talks about threat to life and breakdown of law and order.

“The Honourable Court is respectfully called upon to take judicial notice of the Cyber Crime (Prohibition and Prevention) Act 2015 (as amended) in February 2024. In the case of IDRIS υ Α.Ν.Ρ.Ρ (2008) S NWLR PT 1088 1, the Court held that a Court of law is perfectly entitled to take judicial notice of all laws. The implication of the foregoing is that count 2 of the amended charge dated May 15, 2024, is dead on arrival. The acts alleged in the count did not constitute an offence at the time they were allegedly made nor constitute an offence under any known law?”

In conclusion, Falana and Co. said, “Arguments have been proffered to demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the instant charge (as amended) is grossly lacking in merit and ought to be struck out.

“It is submitted that the issues of jurisdiction raised in this application bother largely on substantive law, which parties cannot elect to waive. This Honourable Court, is, therefore, urged to timeously strike out this charge and save the Court’s precious judicial time.”

The case was adjourned to July 19, 2024 for ruling.

On Tuesday, June 25, SaharaReporters reported that a set of lawyers representing Ijele in the cybercrime and criminal defamation case had raised the alarm over his deteriorating health condition.

Deji Adeyanju & Partners, through one of their lawyers, Silas Onwugbonu, Esq., in a public statement dated June 24, 2024, lamented that the influencer’s health condition had worsened to the point of coughing up blood.

This is according to a public statement on the ‘Deteriorating Health Condition Of Mr. Chizorom Harrison Ofoegbu (IJELE) At The Nigeria Correctional Centre, Ikoyi, Lagos State.’

In the public statement, the law firm states, “We wish to draw the attention of the general public to the deteriorating health condition of our client, Mr. Chizorom Harrison Ofoegbu (IJELE), who has been detained since March 19, 2024, at the instance of the Nigeria Police Force, on a purely civil dispute.

“A few days ago, our attention was drawn to the fact that our client, who is currently detained at the Nigeria Correctional Centre (NCC), Ikoyi, Lagos State, is gravely ill.

“As at the time of issuing this public statement, our client’s health condition has deteriorated to the point of coughing up blood, with no medical facilities available to restore his health within the NCC, Ikoyi.

“It will be recalled that in furtherance of its desire to perpetually keep our client in detention, the Nigeria Police Force has filed three pending identical charges FHC/ABJ/CR/159/2024; Inspector General Of Police V Chizorom Harris Ofoegbu: FHC/L/312C/2924; Inspector General Of Police V Chizorom Harris Ofoegbu and FHC/AWK/CR/2024:  Inspector General Of Police V Chukwuka Chizorom Ofoegbu, against our client, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, Lagos and Awka, all at the instance of the same coalition of nominal complainants, and for the same alleged civil dispute.”

The law firm recalled that Ijele was granted bail by a Federal High Court in Lagos on June 14 but added that it was frustrated by the police.