By PRINCE OSUAGWU Hi-Tech Editor,

THERE is arguably no law that has brought confidence and fear altogether to one sector of the economy than the Prohibition, Prevention, Detection. Response, Investigation and Prosecution of Cybercrimes and other Related Matters Act 2015, simply known as the Cybercrime Act.

Cyber crime

While some regulated services providers in the telecommunications sector appear to appreciate the Act as having the potentials to curtail excesses of others they feel are competing with their revenues without commensurate investments, others whose services are carried out over internet protocol, IP and their teeming users feel there is a place in the Act that could whittle down their creativity and innovation. Yet everybody seems to be in agreement that the Nigerian cyberspace should not be left for just anything to fly in and out unguarded.

However, apparent minimal knowledge of the Act by the people it was meant to serve, and reservations in some quarters that wholesome consultation was not explored prior to its endorsement, are making the Act controversial among the people it has come to rescue.

Consequently, the chief regulator of the sector, the Nigerian Communications Commission, NCC, has stepped in to clear the air in different areas of the Act.

In fact it took the opportunity of the just concluded Social Media Week, which held in Lagos last week to provide that needed intervention.

Through a robust panel of professionals from the media, law, public relations and the government, the commission was able to xray a whole lot of issues around “what the new media has to do with the Cybercrime Act”

The commission, unequivocally, stated that the cybercrime act was not meant to regulate the Internet or Over The Top (OTT) services, also known as disruptive technologies, but to ensure that everybody is responsible for his act on the cyberspace.

OTTs are service providers riding on the network of telecom operators to provide value added services such Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, LinkedIn, BBM among others.

The director of Public Affairs of the Commission, Mr. Tony Ojobo, who represented the Executive Vice Chairman, EVC of the commission, even said that the act was put together to ensure a healthy and responsible internet activity.

According to him, regulating the Internet or OTT will stifle creativity and innovation, and reduce the accelerated growth Nigeria is already recording in new media development across the world.

However, he noted that “with the new act, every operator whether traditional or OTT will now be responsible for what is put out in the cyberspace through their platform.

“It is now their challenge to deploy technology that would check espionage, fraud, hackers and all other unwholesome activities that may come to the cyberspace through their platforms.”

Menace of cybercrime

He also admitted that the act is not an end to itself in checking cybercrime, since there may be issues that could be raised along its implementation that could lead to amendment in future.

“Every law is subject to amendment and the cybercrime act is not an exception. What the industry has done is to raise the awareness and consciousness to see the menace of cybercrime mitigated to the barest minimum. It is now the duty of the public to also look at relevant areas that were either ignored or omitted and raise them for subsequent amendment of the act. But fears of it being a measure of regulating the Internet should be dispelled. “

Presenting the EVC’s speech at the event, he noted that the cybercrime act 2015 is an act of parliament which has become law since it was accented to by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in May 15 2015. He said it is therefore imperative for new media practitioners to familiarize themselves with the contents of the law as it affects   their practice.

For him, the regulator’s objectives should be to catalyze additional opportunities offered by OTT services to the benefit of the consumer and to support competition while avoiding the OTT related risks in the areas of security and data protection.

Ojobo said that while the commission acknowledges the fears of traditional telecom service providers that traditional telephony and SMS revenues are under threat from newer, IP based alternatives like WhatsApp, Skype, Viber, among others, they should also in turn accept the challenge to innovate and explore more efficient business models that would enable them compete favourably with OTT service providers.

He highlighted significant areas the Act protects not only the cyberspace but investments in the country:

Freedom of expression, but….

The Act does not encumber the freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution but seeks to protect those whose freedom may be damaged by the freedom freely expressed by others. Section 24 of the Act deals with Cyber stalking and also prescribes punishment for “Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network” which, among others, “he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent:   Commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000, 000. 00 or imprisonment for a term not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.

OTTs responsible for security of their platforms

The Act shares out responsibilities to the various stakeholders including, cybercafé operators, financial institutions and telecom service providers. For instance, Section 38(1) expects a service provider to keep all traffic data and subscriber information as may be prescribed by the relevant authority for the time being, responsible for the regulation of communication services in Nigeria, for a period of 2 years.

Critical national infrastructure

Part 11 &111 of the Act deals with Designation of certain computer systems or networks as critical national infrastructure as well as offences and penalties for damaging such critical infrastructure. It may be interesting to juxtapose this part of the Act with Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1975 (An Act to provide stiffer penalties for damages to telephone communication works, electricity transmission lines and oil pipelines and to enable armed patrols arrest any person committing an offence under this Act) and see how they work together to protect telecommunications infrastructure.