site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

CHARLOTTE DEHLI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2024)

Court of Appeal (Port Harcourt Division)

Coram
  • Abubakar Mahmud Talba JCA
  • Danlami Zama Senchi JCA
  • Hannatu A. Laja Balogun JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)
Parties

Appellant:

  • Charlotte Dehli

Respondent:

  • Federal Republic of Nigeria
Suit number
CA/PH/32CR/2023
Delivered on

Background

This case concerns Charlotte Dehli, who was accused of posting a nude picture of a male friend online for extortion, prompting her arraignment under section 24(2)(c)(ii) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015. The case was brought before the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, where Dehli challenged the court’s jurisdiction by arguing that the State Security Service (SSS) lacked the authority to prosecute the case.

Issues

The key legal questions examined by the Court of Appeal included:

  1. Whether the Lower Court correctly determined that the State Security Service could prosecute the offence under the Cybercrimes Act.
  2. Whether the SSS, by virtue of its powers under the National Security Agencies Act, had the competence to investigate the accusations against Dehli.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that:

  1. The SSS does not possess prosecutorial powers under the Cybercrimes Act or the National Security Agencies Act.
  2. In the absence of a direct legislative provision granting prosecutorial powers to the SSS, the lower court's ruling was erroneous.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

  1. The allegations against Dehli did not amount to matters of national security warranting SSS involvement, thus invalidating the SSS's claim of jurisdiction.
  2. The Cybercrimes Act does not list the SSS as a law enforcement agency authorized to prosecute cybercrimes.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Dehli, allowing her appeal against the lower court's decision. The charge against her was deemed incompetent due to the failure to follow proper legal procedures.

Significance

This ruling is pivotal in clarifying the jurisdictional limits of the State Security Service concerning prosecutorial powers and underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when initiating legal proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that crying out for security cannot be extended to areas not explicitly covered by law, thereby protecting the rights of individuals against unwarranted legal actions.

Counsel:

  • A. S. Arthur, Esq.
  • E. T. T. Assayomo, Esq.
  • G. O. George, Esq.