The reported arrest and subsequent remand of Cross River businessman and social commentator Denis Odama has opened a serious debate about freedom of expression, police powers and the treatment of government critics in Nigeria.

What began with reports that Odama had been arrested in Lagos over alleged social-media “bullying” of Cross River State Governor, Senator Bassey Edet Otu, has now moved into the courtroom, with a Chief Magistrates’ Court in Calabar reportedly ordering his seven-day remand and adjourning the matter until August 19, 2026.

For Akahi News, the central question is not whether Denis Odama’s style of criticism is popular or unpopular.

The question is much more fundamental:

At what point does criticism of a public official become a criminal offence, and who has the authority to make that determination?

What We Know About the Reported Arrest

According to SaharaReporters, Odama was reportedly arrested by Nigeria Police Force personnel in Lagos on August 9 over allegations that he bullied Governor Otu on social media. He was subsequently taken from Lagos to Calabar.

The report said the matter became public after Odama’s kinsman and fellow businessman, Tom Alims, disclosed that two policemen had appeared at the FESTAC Divisional Police Headquarters in Lagos, allegedly to take Odama back to Cross River.

The reported explanation attributed to the police was particularly striking: that Odama was being arrested for “bullying the Governor of Cross River State” on social media.

That wording immediately raises a legal question.

“Bullying the governor” is not, by itself, a sufficient description of a criminal offence.

Authorities must identify the actual offence allegedly committed, the law creating that offence and the facts which supposedly satisfy the legal ingredients of that offence.

The Posts That Apparently Attracted Attention

One issue reportedly linked to the arrest was Odama’s criticism of the government’s handling of electricity restoration in Bekwarra.

SaharaReporters reported that Odama revisited an earlier promise concerning restoration of electricity in his community and questioned why the area remained without electricity. He also made allegations concerning contracts and those responsible for the project.

Such statements may be considered harsh, provocative or even defamatory depending on their precise wording and factual basis.

But there is an important distinction between offensive political speech, defamatory allegations and conduct that legally constitutes cyberstalking or another criminal offence.

Those categories should not simply be collapsed into one.

There was also reported controversy surrounding Odama’s criticism of the Cross River State Sports Ministry and his questioning of the continued retention of a commissioner.

Again, whether one agrees with his language is a separate issue from whether the language constitutes a criminal offence.

The July Warnings Make the Story More Disturbing

The circumstances become even more significant when viewed against reports that Odama had apparently received warnings before his arrest.

According to the material supplied to Akahi News, Odama published a message on July 25 in which he was allegedly warned to stop discussing Governor Otu on social media.

The message reportedly referred to his business and family in Calabar and warned that he was “walking a very thin line”.

Three days later, Odama reportedly made another post saying that if people saw him 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”.

These posts do not prove who was behind the warning, nor do they establish that anyone planned his subsequent arrest.

But they are important pieces of context.

They suggest that Odama himself perceived that his political commentary had become a sensitive issue before the reported police action.

Now There Is a Court Order

The situation has moved beyond social-media allegations.

According to the update supplied to Akahi News, a Chief Magistrates’ Court sitting in Calabar ordered Odama to be remanded for seven days, with the case adjourned until August 19, 2026.

SaharaReporters had earlier reported that Odama had already been taken to Calabar and remanded at the Afokang Correctional Centre following the court proceedings.

This development is important because it means the matter must now be examined through the formal criminal-justice process rather than solely through social-media narratives.

However, remand is not conviction.

A remand order does not establish that Odama committed the alleged offence. It is a judicial decision concerning custody while the legal process continues.

Therefore, Nigerians should resist the temptation to pronounce guilt or innocence before the court determines the substance of the allegation.

But What Exactly Is “Cyberbullying” Under Nigerian Law?

This is perhaps the most important legal issue in the entire controversy.

Nigeria’s Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act was amended in 2024, significantly changing the controversial Section 24 dealing with cyberstalking.

The amended provision is considerably narrower than the old law. It covers, among other things, knowingly sending certain false messages for specified purposes and communications intended to bully, threaten or harass another person where the communication places that person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm.

That distinction is crucial.

The mere fact that a person criticises a governor on Facebook does not automatically mean that the person has committed cyberstalking.

The authorities would need to establish the elements of the specific offence they are alleging.

Academic analysis of the 2024 amendment has similarly noted that the amended Section 24 provides greater precision than the former provision, although concerns remain about its impact on freedom of expression.

Nigeria Has Already Had a Legal Battle Over Section 24

The controversy is not happening in isolation.

The old Section 24 attracted major criticism because of its broad language and its potential use against journalists, activists and citizens expressing opinions online.

The ECOWAS Court had previously found aspects of the old provision inconsistent with freedom-of-expression protections, contributing to the eventual amendment of the law in 2024.

Senior human-rights lawyer Femi Falana also argued in 2024 that the old provisions criminalising such things as offensive messages, insults and annoyance had been repealed following the amendment.

That history makes the Odama case particularly important.

Nigeria has already gone through a national debate about whether vaguely worded cybercrime provisions can be used to suppress legitimate expression.

The country should therefore be extremely careful about returning to a situation where “cyberbullying” becomes a convenient label for any uncomfortable criticism posted online.

Freedom of Expression Is Not a Licence to Commit a Crime

There is, however, an equally important point that should not be ignored.

Freedom of expression is fundamental, but it is not unlimited.

A citizen cannot hide behind political criticism to make credible threats, deliberately spread knowingly false information in circumstances prohibited by law, extort people, threaten violence or engage in conduct that otherwise satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence.

Therefore, Akahi News is not arguing that everything Denis Odama may have written is automatically protected.

Rather, the authorities should demonstrate exactly what he allegedly did.

If there is a criminal post, identify it.

If there is a complainant, identify the nature of the complaint.

If a particular law was violated, identify the section.

If investigators have evidence, present it before the appropriate court.

That is the difference between law enforcement and punishment by accusation.

The Constitution Protects Political Expression

Section 39 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution protects freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas.

That constitutional protection is particularly important when the subject of the criticism is a public official.

A governor occupies public office.

A commissioner occupies public office.

They exercise public authority and manage public resources.

Consequently, their decisions will inevitably attract public scrutiny.

A citizen asking why a community remains without electricity after a government promise is not, on its face, the same thing as threatening the governor.

A citizen demanding the removal of a commissioner is not automatically committing cyberstalking.

A citizen accusing government officials of poor performance may be wrong, unfair or even potentially defamatory, but the legal response must still follow the appropriate legal route.

Public Officials Must Also Tolerate Scrutiny

This is where the argument made by Abuja-based lawyer Barrister Etaba Agbor becomes significant.

Agbor, Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association Young Lawyers Forum, reportedly called for Odama’s immediate release and argued that criticism of public officials should not become a basis for intimidation or abuse of security agencies.

He reportedly maintained that where a public official believes he has been defamed, the appropriate remedy is through the courts rather than the deployment of state coercive power against a critic.

That argument deserves serious consideration.

Democracy is not tested when citizens praise those in power.

Democracy is tested when citizens criticise those in power.

A government that can tolerate applause but cannot tolerate questions has not fully embraced the culture of democratic accountability.

But the Government Also Deserves Protection From False Accusations

There must also be fairness to Governor Otu and the Cross River State Government.

It would be irresponsible to automatically conclude that the governor personally ordered Odama’s arrest.

Indeed, reports cited by SaharaReporters said Odama’s associates believed Governor Otu might not have been aware of the action.

Therefore, Akahi News will not make the unsubstantiated claim that Governor Otu ordered the arrest.

The government should be given an opportunity to explain its position.

If there was a petition, the authorities should explain the nature of the complaint.

If the police acted independently, the police should say so.

If the allegation is cyberstalking, the precise publication and legal provision should be disclosed through the appropriate proceedings.

Transparency would serve everyone, including the governor.

The Police Must Not Become an Instrument of Political Intimidation

Perhaps the most important institutional question is the role of the police.

The Nigeria Police Force has a legitimate responsibility to investigate suspected criminal offences.

But that responsibility comes with constitutional and statutory obligations to respect the rights of suspects.

SaharaReporters quoted Barrister Agbor as warning that detention should not become punishment before trial and that criminal investigations must remain within the bounds of the law.

This principle is fundamental.

Arrest is not conviction. Detention is not punishment. A police allegation is not proof. A remand order is not a finding of guilt.

These distinctions must remain clear.

The Seven-Day Remand Deserves Careful Scrutiny

The reported seven-day remand is also something Nigerians should watch carefully.

The Cross River State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2016 provides the procedural framework for criminal justice in the state. The law was introduced as part of efforts to improve criminal justice administration and reduce delays in the system.

Interestingly, the Cross River State Police Command itself reaffirmed in April 2026 its commitment to rights-based policing and compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2016, the federal Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Police Act 2020.

That makes the Odama case an opportunity for those principles to be demonstrated in practice.

If the authorities have a genuine case, the judicial process should proceed transparently.

If there is insufficient evidence, the appropriate legal remedy should follow.

The Bigger Issue Is Bigger Than Denis Odama

For Akahi News, this case should not be reduced to whether one man is a supporter or critic of Governor Otu.

The bigger question concerns the future of political expression in Cross River State and Nigeria.

Social media has become one of the most important platforms through which ordinary citizens question government.

Facebook posts, TikTok videos, X posts, WhatsApp broadcasts and YouTube programmes now form part of the public conversation.

Government officials cannot reasonably expect every citizen to praise every policy.

Citizens will complain about roads.

They will question electricity projects.

They will criticise appointments.

They will demand accountability for public spending.

They will ask why government promises have not been fulfilled.

Some will express themselves politely.

Others will be harsh.

Some may even cross legal boundaries.

The responsibility of the state is to distinguish between those categories—not to treat all criticism as criminality.

What Should Happen Next?

Akahi News believes four things are necessary.

First, the exact allegation against Denis Odama should be made clear.

The public should not have to rely on the phrase “bullying the governor”. The specific offence should be identified.

Second, the particular social-media publication or publications involved should be identified through the legal process.

This will allow the court and the public to understand what conduct is actually being challenged.

Third, the Cross River State Government should clearly state whether it authorised, requested or had any involvement in the police action.

This is particularly important because allegations have circulated that the governor himself may not have known about the arrest.

Fourth, Odama’s constitutional and legal rights must be respected throughout the proceedings.

If he committed an offence, the court should determine that through due process.

If he did not, he should not remain in custody simply because his criticism offended people in power.

Akahi Master Analysis

The Denis Odama case is a test of something much bigger than one Facebook commentator.

It is a test of whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions can distinguish between dissent and criminality.

Government must be protected from genuine threats.

Public officials must be protected from legitimate criminal conduct.

Citizens must also be protected from arbitrary arrest and intimidation.

All three principles can exist together.

The answer is not to silence criticism.

The answer is to apply the law fairly.

If Denis Odama made a knowingly false statement that satisfies the requirements of the Cybercrimes Act, let the prosecution prove it.

If he threatened, harassed or bullied someone in a manner that legally constitutes an offence, let the evidence be presented.

If he made defamatory allegations, the appropriate legal remedies remain available.

But if his offence was simply that he criticised the governor, questioned government performance, complained about electricity or demanded accountability, then Nigeria must be careful not to turn political criticism into a crime by attaching the label “cyberbullying” to it.

The governor’s office is temporary.

Government officials come and go.

But the democratic principle that citizens have the right to question those who exercise public power must survive every administration.

As the case returns to court on August 19, 2026, the most important thing Cross Riverians should demand is neither automatic condemnation nor automatic exoneration.

They should demand facts, evidence, transparency and due process.

Because if Denis Odama committed a crime, the law should speak.

And if he merely criticised government, democracy must speak even louder.

Akahi News will continue to follow the matter as developments emerge.

By Joseph Iyaji | Akahi News