# PRESS FREEDOM UNDER SCRUTINY AS JOURNALIST DANIEL OJUKWU IS REMANDED IN KUJE
NATIONAL NEWS | NOVEMBER 12, 2026
By News Desk
The remand of investigative journalist Daniel Ojukwu at the Kuje Correctional Centre in Abuja has triggered fresh concerns over press freedom, freedom of expression and the protection of public-interest journalism in Nigeria, following demands by 17 media and civil society organisations for his immediate release.
Ojukwu, a reporter with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), was remanded by a Federal High Court in Abuja on November 10, 2026, after pleading not guilty to a 12-count charge bordering on alleged cyberstalking and criminal defamation.
The court reportedly fixed December 1, 2026, for the hearing of his bail application, leaving the journalist in custody pending the proceedings.
The charges relate to investigative reports published in 2023 and 2024 concerning the expenditure of the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Sustainable Development Goals (OSSAP-SDGs), which was headed by Adejoke Orelope-Adefulire during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The development has attracted condemnation from media organisations, rights groups and international press freedom advocates, who fear that criminal prosecution arising from investigative journalism could discourage reporting on public expenditure and alleged irregularities in government projects.
## THE REPORTS AT THE CENTRE OF THE CONTROVERSY
According to reports by TheCable and the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR), the publications that form the basis of the prosecution questioned payments of approximately ₦147.1 million and ₦47.5 million for classroom construction and related projects.
One of the investigations examined an alleged ₦147.1 million payment for classroom construction and a skills acquisition centre in Lagos.
Another questioned a ₦47.5 million contract connected to classroom construction, while a separate report raised concerns about solar installations that allegedly stopped functioning shortly after project completion.
FIJ’s investigations also questioned whether some of the projects were delivered at their designated locations and whether the facilities were serving the communities for which public funds had reportedly been allocated.
These allegations remain matters requiring proper verification and response from the relevant public institutions. The charges against Ojukwu, meanwhile, must be determined through the judicial process.
According to TheCable, the prosecution alleges that the publications exposed Orelope-Adefulire to fear of death, violence or bodily harm. The journalist has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
TheCable
+2
## 17 ORGANISATIONS DEMAND IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The renewed prosecution has prompted a joint intervention by 17 media and civil society organisations, which described Ojukwu’s continued detention as a threat to democratic accountability and the constitutional rights of journalists.
The coalition includes:
– Accountability Lab Nigeria
– BudgIT
– Cable Newspaper Journalism Foundation
– Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID)
– Dataphyte Foundation
– Digital Africa Research and Safety Lab
– Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative
– Enough is Enough Nigeria
– Gatefield Impact Foundation
– Global Rights
– Hope Behind Bars Africa
– International Press Centre
– Media Rights Agenda
– Network of University Legal Aid Institutions Nigeria
– Techsocietal
– Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)
– WikkiTimes
In their joint statement, the organisations demanded Ojukwu’s immediate release and called for his bail application to be heard without unnecessary delay.
They also urged the authorities to discontinue what they described as the misuse of cybercrime and criminal defamation laws against journalists carrying out legitimate public-interest investigations.
The coalition argued that public officials entrusted with taxpayers’ money must be prepared to explain how such funds are allocated and spent.
It further demanded the release of relevant government project records, independent scrutiny of the disputed expenditure and appropriate accountability measures where irregularities are established.
The organisations maintained that disagreements over journalistic publications should be addressed through lawful remedies that respect constitutional protections and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.
Premium Times Nigeria
+2
## CPJ AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL JOIN THE OUTCRY
The controversy has also attracted international attention.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), in a statement issued on November 11, called on Nigerian authorities to drop the criminal charges against Ojukwu and FIJ founder Fisayo Soyombo, release the journalist and reconsider laws that could be used to criminalise journalism.
CPJ disclosed that Soyombo is also facing charges in the same case but was absent from the November 10 court proceedings. The police reportedly sought a bench warrant for his arrest.
The organisation said the charges relate to four FIJ investigations published between late 2023 and early 2024.
CPJ also reported that the charges include provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and the Criminal Code Act, with potentially significant penalties upon conviction.
The international press freedom organisation expressed concern that the prosecution could discourage journalists from investigating allegations involving public officials, particularly as Nigeria approaches another election cycle.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International Nigeria and SERAP have separately called for Ojukwu’s release and an end to the prosecution.
Amnesty warned that the continued detention could reinforce a climate in which journalists face intimidation for reporting allegations of corruption and demanding accountability.
Committee to Protect Journalists
+2
## FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSURES MEDIA OF PRESS FREEDOM
Amid the growing criticism, the Federal Government has also responded to the controversy.
According to The Guardian of November 12, Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, assured that the Tinubu administration would neither gag the media nor suppress journalists for expressing views contrary to government positions.
The assurance comes against the backdrop of growing demands from media organisations and human rights advocates for the government to demonstrate its commitment to press freedom through the handling of the Ojukwu case.
However, the position of the Federal Government does not resolve the central questions surrounding the prosecution, including why the journalist remains in custody pending the determination of his bail application.
The lawyer representing Orelope-Adefulire, Muiz Banire, also defended the prosecution, telling CPJ that journalists should practise responsible journalism and should be prepared to demonstrate the correctness of publications concerning his client.
CPJ reported that its attempts to obtain comments directly from Orelope-Adefulire were unsuccessful.
These positions underscore the competing issues in the case: the right of individuals to seek legal redress over allegedly harmful publications and the responsibility of the media to investigate matters of legitimate public interest.
The Guardian Nigeria
+1
## A PREVIOUS ARREST IN MAY 2024
Ojukwu’s current detention has revived memories of his previous encounter with the police in May 2024.
On May 1, 2024, the journalist was arrested in Lagos by operatives of the Intelligence Response Team of the Nigeria Police Force.
According to FIJ, his whereabouts were initially unknown to his family, colleagues and friends. He was subsequently traced to police custody and transferred to the National Cybercrime Centre in Abuja.
The journalist spent 10 days in detention before regaining his freedom on May 10, 2024, following public pressure and protests by civil society organisations.
Reuters reported at the time that the arrest had generated criticism from media rights organisations, which questioned the use of the Cybercrime Act against journalists.
The police, however, maintained that his arrest followed a petition alleging violations of the law.
The current prosecution therefore represents a renewed legal confrontation arising from the same body of investigative reporting that attracted controversy in 2024.
Reuters
+2
## THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
At the centre of the debate is the relationship between Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation, criminal defamation provisions and constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution assigns the mass media the responsibility of holding government accountable to the people.
Section 39 guarantees freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information.
Nigeria is also a signatory to international human rights instruments, including Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect freedom of expression.
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act was amended in 2024, including changes to Section 24, which addresses cyberstalking.
Although legislation provides avenues for addressing genuine cyber-related offences, press freedom advocates have repeatedly raised concerns about the possibility of its application against journalists reporting on public officials.
The broader question is whether criminal proceedings in cases involving investigative reporting are being pursued in a manner that adequately balances the rights of complainants with constitutional protections for journalism.
Importantly, Ojukwu’s plea of not guilty means the allegations against him have not been established by a court. Equally, the concerns raised in FIJ’s investigations should not be treated as proven financial misconduct without independent verification.
For now, The immediate legal development to watch is the hearing of Ojukwu’s bail application, scheduled for December 1, 2026, before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Until then, the journalist remains at the Kuje Correctional Centre unless the court makes a further order.
The case also has implications for FIJ founder Fisayo Soyombo, who is named alongside Ojukwu in the proceedings.
Meanwhile, the 17 organisations have outlined several demands:
1. The immediate release of Daniel Ojukwu.
2. The granting of bail pending the determination of the case.
3. An end to the criminalisation of public-interest investigative journalism.
4. Protection of journalists against intimidation and harassment.
5. Disclosure of government records relating to the disputed SDG projects.
6. Independent investigation of the expenditure and delivery of the projects.
THE BIGGER ISSUE: WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE?
Beyond the courtroom proceedings, the Ojukwu case has reopened an important national conversation about transparency, public accountability and the role of investigative journalism in Nigeria.
Government projects are funded with public resources, and citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing whether appropriated funds are properly utilised and whether promised facilities are delivered.
Investigative journalism provides one mechanism through which these questions can be examined, particularly where official explanations and conditions on the ground appear to differ.
At the same time, journalists are expected to maintain professional standards, verify allegations and provide those affected by their reporting an opportunity to respond.
The challenge for democratic institutions is to ensure that legitimate complaints about publications are addressed fairly without undermining the media’s constitutionally recognised accountability function.
For Ojukwu, the immediate concern remains his continued detention and the forthcoming bail hearing.
For the Nigerian media, the case raises wider questions about the legal and professional environment in which journalists investigate public expenditure.
And for ordinary Nigerians, the central issue remains straightforward: how can citizens effectively hold public institutions accountable if investigations into the management of public funds become entangled in prolonged criminal proceedings?
The December 1 hearing will be an important next development in a case that has moved beyond one journalist to become a national debate about press freedom, accountability and the public’s right to know.