Calls for the immediate release of investigative journalist Daniel Ojukwu have intensified following his remand in prison custody for 21 days by a Federal High Court in Abuja, with #FreeDanielOjukwu emerging as one of the top trends on X on Wednesday afternoon.
Amnesty International, human rights lawyer, Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, BudgIT founder, Oluseun Onigbinde, and several activists have condemned the journalist's detention, warning that it could undermine press freedom and discourage investigative reporting in Nigeria.
Ojukwu, a reporter with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), was on Tuesday remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, over a 12-count charge bordering on cyberstalking.
The judge ordered that he remain in custody until December 1, 2026, when his bail application is expected to be heard. He had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The case reportedly stems from Ojukwu's investigative reports concerning alleged financial impropriety involving President Bola Tinubu's Senior Special Assistant on Sustainable Development Goals, Adejoke Orelope-Adefulire.
The reports raised questions over an alleged N147 million payment meant for classroom construction to a restaurant account, an allegation that has since attracted considerable public attention.
Reacting to the development, Amnesty International Nigeria called on the Federal Government to secure Ojukwu's immediate and unconditional release, describing his continued detention as a threat to freedom of expression and media independence.
In a statement published on its X account on Wednesday, the organisation expressed concern that judicial processes were being used to intimidate journalists investigating allegations of corruption and abuse of power.
“His detention raises serious concerns about the use of judicial processes to intimidate journalists and undermine the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in Nigeria,” it said.
Amnesty recalled that Ojukwu was abducted by police officers in May 2024 over his journalistic work and detained for 10 days.
It said his latest prosecution appeared to reflect a wider pattern of using the criminal justice system to punish journalists for exposing alleged wrongdoing by public officials.
“The continued prosecution and detention of Ojukwu appear to be part of a broader pattern of using the criminal justice system to punish journalists for exposing allegations of corruption and holding public officials accountable,” the organisation stated.
It warned that the additional 21 days in detention could create an atmosphere of fear among journalists and media professionals.
“Detaining him for a further 21 days risks reinforcing a climate of fear and intimidation among journalists and media professionals,” it added.
The rights group also urged the authorities to ensure that proceedings against Ojukwu complied with international human rights standards, including the right to a fair trial and due process.
It extended its concerns to investigative journalist Fisayo Soyombo, demanding an end to what it described as harassment, intimidation and targeting of the journalist.
Amnesty insisted that media practitioners must be allowed to investigate corruption, abuse of power and human rights violations without fear of retaliation.
Meanwhile, activist Rinu Oduala joined the growing campaign, challenging Orelope-Adefulire to publicly address the allegations contained in Ojukwu's reports rather than pursue legal action against the journalist.
In a series of posts on X, Oduala questioned the alleged payment of funds meant for classroom construction into a restaurant account.
“How do you pay money for children classrooms to a restaurant account?” she asked.
She argued that the alleged diversion of funds meant for children's education raised serious questions about accountability and the management of public resources.
Oduala also recalled Ojukwu's previous detention over the same publications, noting that he had spent 10 days in police custody in 2024.
She questioned why the journalist was again facing detention for reporting on alleged financial impropriety.
“Guess who the court ordered to be thrown in Jail till December to decide bail for ‘cybercrime’? You guessed right. The journalist,” she wrote.
The activist further challenged the presidential aide to explain the alleged transaction, declaring that she was prepared to face arrest over her own comments.
“Arrest me too, but you must explain how money meant for classrooms was paid into a restaurant account,” she added.
Onigbinde, meanwhile, described the arrest and remand of Ojukwu as a matter of concern for Nigerians who believe in transparency, accountability and the public's right to information.
The BudgIT founder said journalism was an essential component of democratic governance and should not be treated as a favour granted by those in authority.
“The arrest and remand of Daniel Ojukwu should concern everyone who believes in accountability and the public's right to know.
“Journalism is not a favour granted by those in power. It is an essential part of the accountability architecture of a functioning democracy,” he said.
He maintained that allegations against journalists should be addressed through due process rather than creating an atmosphere in which reporting on public expenditure becomes dangerous.
According to him, investigative reports should be answered with facts, evidence and transparency.
“We must be careful not to create a country where the cost of asking difficult questions is the loss of one's liberty,” he said.
Onigbinde expressed solidarity with Ojukwu and the FIJ team, urging that his right to a fair hearing be protected and his bail application given urgent and fair consideration.
“A society that makes accountability dangerous will eventually make impunity comfortable,” he added.
Odinkalu also condemned the court's decision, questioning the circumstances surrounding the journalist's remand.
The human rights lawyer alleged that Ojukwu's investigation exposed how an entity reportedly operated by an associate of President Tinubu paid N147 million to a restaurant for classroom construction.
In his reaction on X, Odinkalu accused the court of refusing to hear the journalist's bail application before ordering his remand.
He described the development as a “judicial hit job”, expressing concern over what he considered the use of judicial processes to punish investigative journalism.
Another activist, Akintunde Babatunde, also criticised the development, arguing that the detention of a journalist over reports concerning alleged misuse of public funds raised troubling questions about press freedom.
He wrote: “The journalist who exposed that a government office reportedly paid N147 million to a restaurant to build classrooms has now been remanded in PRISON. Welcome to Nigeria where doing journalism is a CRIME!”
Human rights activist Funke Adeoye similarly condemned Ojukwu's detention, recalling that he had been arrested and detained for 10 days in 2024 over the same publications.
Adeoye noted that the current case was being prosecuted in the name of the Inspector-General of Police, raising concerns about the role of law enforcement agencies in disputes arising from investigative reporting.
She said investigating alleged wrongdoing in the public interest should not become grounds for deploying the criminal justice system against journalists.
“The police cannot continue to be used as an instrument for settling scores, intimidating journalists or shielding public officials from scrutiny,” she said.
Adeoye described the development as an abuse of state power and urged Nigerians to be concerned about the implications for accountability and freedom of the press.
The growing reactions have further amplified the campaign for Ojukwu's release, with journalists, activists and civil society voices using the #FreeDanielOjukwu hashtag to demand his freedom.
The controversy has also renewed debate over the application of cybercrime laws in cases involving investigative journalism and allegations against public officials.
As pressure mounts on the authorities, rights advocates insist that public officials should respond to allegations of wrongdoing with explanations and verifiable evidence, while journalists must be protected from intimidation for carrying out their professional responsibilities.
Leave a Reply