“Dele Farotimi vs. The State: Are the New Cybercrime Charges Against Dele Farotimi By AGN Proof of The Kind Of Undue Influence that He Complained About in His book?” [By Dr. Ope Banwo is an Attorney; Public Affairs Commentator and Founder of Naija lives Matter Organization]

The recent decision by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to file new charges under the Cybercrimes Act against Dele Farotimi, in addition to the criminal libel charges already instituted by the Ekiti State Attorney General at the instance of Chief Afe Babalola, easily the most prominent lawyer in Ekiti, and arguably the whole of Nigeria, has deepened the controversy surrounding this criminal libel case against Dele Farotimi.

From the point of view of the law, public interest and morality, this development raises serious concerns about potential overreach, the impartiality of the AGF, and the broader implications for public trust in our judicial and legal institutions.

1. A Troubling Escalation of Free Speech from Criminal Libel to Cyber Crime Charges by the Attorney General of the federation

According to the newly filed charges, Farotimi is now accused in FEDERAL COURT, by the AGN, of engaging in acts such as “cyberstalking” and “knowingly publishing false information against the judiciary and certain individuals to cause reputational damage.” While cyberstalking and the intentional spread of misinformation are undoubtedly serious offenses, the timing of these charges—five months after the publication of his book and only after his arrest for criminal libel at the instance of Chief Afe Babalola, a very influential private individual —casts serious doubt on the impartiality of the process, just like most have feared from the very beginning.

The new escalated charges, coming as an afterthought and more than 5 months after the publication of the book, appear to suggest that Dele Farotimi’s book and public commentary have somehow morphed into acts of cybercrime overnight.

But can expressing controversial or even offensive opinions about the judiciary, however sweeping or unguarded or offensive, reasonably be construed as cybercrime? This feels like a stretch, especially given the context of a heated public dispute between 2 private individuals over the fallout of a case they both handled for their respective clients.

More worrisome is the fact that these charges were not brought forward until after Farotimi was detained on the instigation of a petition filed by Chief Afe Babalola—a highly respected figure in the Nigerian legal community and the former employer of the AGF.

In Yoruba language our elders have a saying “that the witch cried yesterday, and the child died this morning, who does not know that it was the witch of yesterday that was responsible for the death of the child?” It wont matter to the people if the cry of the witch has nothing to do with the death of today. Everyone will be convinced that’s the case.

2. The Optics of Undue Influence from the new Move by the AGN

Dele Farotimi’s book alleges that Chief Afe Babalola wields undue influence over organs of state, particularly the judiciary. While these are serious allegations that must be substantiated, the actions of the AGF in this matter do not pass the smell test of impartiality.

Its public knowledge that the AGF once worked in Chief Afe Babalola’s chambers for many years and even earned the coveted rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) while under his mentorship and guidance. The AGF’s decision to now escalate what began as a private matter of libel between his mentor and another lawyer into a broader state-backed prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act only amplifies the perception that private individuals may be exercising undue influence on government actions—even if that is not the case. This by thew way is one of the big claims by Dele Farotimi in his vexatious book to many people the legal profession.

For many Nigerians, the optics of this situation are troubling. The AGF’s involvement at this stage, and in this manner, even beyond and above what the Ekiti police command is already doing to send Dele Farotimi to jail for his audacious speech and book risks lending credibility to Farotimi’s claims of undue influence in our judicial process.

3. A Question of Priorities and Strategic Missteps

In my humble and most respectful opinion, if the AGF truly believed that Farotimi’s actions constituted a breach of the Cybercrimes Act, why did it take five months for these charges to surface? Why did the AGF wait until after Farotimi had been detained in Ekiti State, under a petition for criminal libel filed by his mentor, to act?

This delayed action undermines the legitimacy of the charges. It gives the impression that the cybercrime allegations are an afterthought—a tool deployed to reinforce the weight of the legal hammer already brought down on Farotimi. It may appear to most people watching that the protégé is now using his sacred office held in trust for the people of Nigeria to settle scores on behalf of his godfather, even if that was not his intention.

From a strategic perspective, at least to my own possibly inexperienced thinking, it would have been far more effective for the AGF to have initiated cybercrime charges earlier and independently of the libel case. By framing the matter as a breach of cybersecurity laws affecting the judiciary as a whole, the AGF could have shielded Chief Afe from public scrutiny while presenting the case as an issue of state interest rather than personal grievance. He could have saved Chief Afe from further reputational damage this whole case is causing him by making him more of an afterthought in the whole matter as opposed to being the instigator batting for the head of Deel Farotimi.

Unfortunately, by acting after the fact, the AGF has inadvertently strengthened the narrative that this is less about protecting the judiciary and more about avenging a personal affront to his benefactor, mentor and godfather.

4. Collateral Damage to the Judiciary and the Legal Profession by this whole affair

This saga about criminalizing the exercise of free speech, instead of making it a civil case like most such case are made, is not just about Dele Farotimi or Chief Afe Babalola anymore—Judging by the most public reaction and most comments on the issue, both and home and abroad, it has now become a referendum on the credibility of the judiciary and the Nigerian Bar Association and now the impartiality of our Attorney General of the Federation.

Allowing this matter to spiral into a public spectacle risks undermining the public’s already fragile trust in the judiciary. The perception that Farotimi is being persecuted for telling the truth—regardless of the veracity of his claims—only reinforces skepticism about the impartiality of the legal system.

This situation calls for introspection within the legal community. The people involved—Farotimi, the alleged victims, and the judges—are all part of the same legal ecosystem and therein may lie a solution that can save our legal institutions and judiciary from further collateral damage. The Nigerian Bar Association and the Nigerian Judicial Commission must step in to mediate and find an internal resolution. Farotimi’s unguarded and sweeping comments about the judiciary deserve censure, and must be censured, but this must be done in a way that minimizes collateral damage to the entire legal profession.

5. The Risk of Inadvertently Turning Dele Farotimi Into a Hero

The government’s heavy-handed approach risks turning Farotimi into a hero for the disillusioned masses. Public confidence in the judiciary and the government is already at an all-time low. By escalating this matter, the AGF may have inadvertently handed Farotimi the platform to position himself as a martyr—a “truth-teller” being silenced by Chief Afe Babalola and his ‘boys’ in government, for his audacity to speak out.

The criminalization of Farotimi’s speech through cybercrime charges only deepens the perception that this is about ganging up on him to silence dissent rather than addressing legitimate grievances raised by Deel Farotimi’s controversial and sweeping gaslighting comments in his book. If anything, this approach could embolden other critics to keep coming out to attack out judges many of whom are actually doing a great job despite some corrupt ones in their midst, and further erode public trust in the judiciary.

6. A Call for Wisdom and Restraint

This case presents an opportunity for the legal profession to demonstrate leadership. The NBA and NJC must take proactive steps to address this matter internally, ensuring that justice is served without exposing the judiciary and the legal profession to further reputational damage.

No doubt, Dele Farotimi must face accountability for his unprofessional conduct, unless he really can back up his claims, but this must be done in a manner that upholds the dignity of the judiciary and minimizes the fallout for the legal community. The focus should be on rebuilding trust in our institutions, not fueling public cynicism.

Conclusion

In my sincere and strongly considered opinion, the filing of new cybercrime charges against Dele Farotimi raises serious questions about impartiality and overreach of the government in this matter. While Farotimi’s conduct warrants scrutiny, unless he present concrete proofs of his allegations, the approach taken so far risks overshadowing the real issues at stake: the integrity of the judiciary, the credibility of the legal profession, and public confidence in governance.

This is a moment for cooler heads to prevail. Cutting off the head is not a solution to migraine. Let us focus on solutions that strengthen our institutions rather than deepening divisions and suspicions of the public. Anything less risks permanent damage to the very fabric of our legal and democratic systems.

As the Founder of Naija Lives Matter Organization, I believe EVERY LIFE in Nigeria matters, both rich and the poor, the influential and the not-so-influential. As a Nigerian Born lawyer who was admitted to the supreme court of Nigeria since 1986, I also have a personal stake in the Nigerian legal system even if I am not practicing law in Nigeria at this time.  Justice must be done in this matter of Dele Farotimi and other cases like it, I agree, but it must also be seen to be done in a fair and transparent manner or none of us public commentators are safe in our country of birth.

[by Dr. Ope Banwo, Attorney, Public Affairs Commentator and Founder of Naija Lives MATTER NGO writes From Omaha, Nebraska USA]