A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered the remand of social media influencer Chidiebere Justice Mark, widely known as “Justice Crack,” in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged cybercrime offences linked to a viral video about the Nigerian Army.
Mark was arraigned on Monday before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on a three-count charge bordering on the circulation of alleged false information and publication of materials said to be capable of inciting public unrest. The charges stem from a video posted on his X (formerly Twitter) handle, @JusticeCrack, in which he claimed that Nigerian soldiers were poorly fed.
According to the prosecution, the defendant allegedly made the post on April 28, 2026, with intent to “cause annoyance, ill will and hatred” among members of the public, in violation of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 (as amended).
The DSS further alleged that the video and accompanying statements generated widespread negative reactions and were likely to cause fear and a breach of peace. In a third count, Mark was accused of attempting to commit a felony by publishing content described as derogatory toward the Nigerian Army.
The court adjourned the matter until May 25, 2026, for trial and possible hearing of a bail application. Justice Abdulmalik also directed that the defendant remain in DSS custody pending further proceedings.
Army’s Position and Arrest Circumstances
Mark’s arraignment follows his arrest over the weekend by the Nigerian Army, which said the influencer’s activities went beyond highlighting welfare concerns. In a statement by Acting Director of Army Public Relations, Colonel Appolonia Anele, the Army alleged that Mark engaged soldiers in discussions “bordering on subversion” and may have attempted to incite discontent within the ranks.
The military also confirmed that some soldiers linked to the viral complaints about feeding and welfare were taken into custody as part of an ongoing investigation into a possible breach of its social media policy.
The case has elicited debate, with some rights advocates and observers raising concerns about freedom of expression and the treatment of individuals who highlight alleged welfare issues within the armed forces. Others, however, emphasize the military’s position that any attempt to influence personnel in a way that undermines discipline or national security must be taken seriously.
As proceedings continue, the case is expected to test the balance between national security concerns and digital free speech in Nigeria’s evolving cybercrime enforcement landscape.
