Journalists and CSOs Demand Release of Daniel Ojukwu, Raise Alarm Over Prosecution

Journalists and CSOs Demand Release of Daniel Ojukwu, Raise Alarm Over Prosecution

By Jerry Adesewo

The questions an investigative journalist asks about public money can sometimes become uncomfortable for those entrusted with managing it. But when the journalist asking those questions ends up behind bars, the concern extends beyond one individual to the right of the public to know how its resources are being spent.

That concern is at the centre of a growing protest by media and civil society organisations over the remand of Daniel Ojukwu, a journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), at the Kuje Correctional Centre in Abuja.

READ ALSO: Nigerian Nurse, US Professor Ann Lawani Detained by ICE Despite Years of Service

Ojukwu was remanded following his arraignment on a 12-count charge relating to investigative reports published in 2023 and 2024 on the expenditure of the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Sustainable Development Goals (OSSAP-SDGs).

The Federal High Court reportedly fixed December 1, 2026, for the hearing of his bail application, leaving the journalist in custody pending that date.

In a joint statement, 17 media and civil society organisations condemned the decision, describing it as a troubling development for press freedom and democratic accountability.

The groups said Ojukwu had pleaded not guilty to all the charges and that his counsel informed the court that he had complied with the conditions of an earlier administrative bail. They expressed concern that the court declined the request for him to continue on the existing bail pending the hearing of his application.

For the organisations, the central issue goes beyond the legal proceedings against one journalist. They fear that the use of criminal prosecution in response to investigative reporting could discourage journalists from examining the activities of public institutions.

The reports at the centre of the case questioned public expenditure on projects involving payments of N147.1 million and N47.5 million for classroom construction. They also raised concerns about the functionality of solar installations reportedly completed under the projects.

The organisations argued that questions about the use of public funds and the delivery of government projects are legitimate matters of public interest that require transparent answers.

“Public officials and institutions entrusted with public resources must be open to scrutiny and prepared to provide explanations about their decisions,” the groups said, maintaining that investigative journalism is an important part of the accountability expected in a democracy.

They cited Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution, which assigns the mass media the responsibility of holding government accountable to the people, as well as Section 39, which guarantees freedom of expression.

The organisations also referred to Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which protect freedom of expression.

Their concern is heightened by Ojukwu’s previous encounter with law enforcement over the same reporting. In May 2024, he was arrested and detained for 10 days before his release following public outcry.

The renewed prosecution, they said, raises questions about a possible pattern of harassment capable of creating fear among journalists who investigate public expenditure, alleged corruption and the conduct of public officials.

For investigative reporters, the implications are significant. Reporting on public projects often involves examining contracts, following payments, speaking to affected communities, and asking whether facilities presented as completed are actually serving the people they were intended to benefit. When such reporting leads to detention and criminal charges, journalists may become more cautious about pursuing stories that expose gaps between official claims and realities on the ground.

The groups warned that the consequences would extend beyond Ojukwu and FIJ. Journalists, newsrooms, whistleblowers, civil society organisations and citizens demanding accountability could all be affected by an environment in which scrutiny of public institutions carries the risk of criminal prosecution.

They maintained that where a report is considered inaccurate or defamatory, the law provides avenues for redress that should be pursued in a manner consistent with constitutional protections and Nigeria’s human rights obligations.

The organisations also cautioned against the use of the Cybercrimes Act and criminal defamation provisions to suppress public-interest reporting, insisting that the criminal justice system should not become an instrument for silencing scrutiny or shielding public officials from accountability.

Among their demands are Ojukwu’s immediate release and the granting of bail pending the determination of the charges. They also called on the authorities to end what they described as the misuse of cybercrime and criminal defamation laws against journalists, guarantee their safety, and address the substantive questions raised in the FIJ investigations.

They further urged the relevant authorities to disclose records relating to the projects and subject the expenditure to independent scrutiny and appropriate accountability mechanisms.

The statement was signed by 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) and WikkiTimes.

The breadth of the organisations involved reflects the seriousness of their concerns about the implications of the case for journalism and civic accountability in Nigeria.

Ultimately, the controversy raises a question that goes to the heart of democratic governance: if journalists cannot freely investigate how public money is spent, how will citizens know whether public projects are delivering the benefits promised to them?

The organisations insist that Ojukwu should not be punished for carrying out his professional duties. They have called for his release and urged the authorities to address the questions raised by the investigations through transparency rather than intimidation.

For now, the journalist remains at Kuje Correctional Centre, awaiting the hearing of his bail application. Beyond the courtroom, his case has become another test of Nigeria’s commitment to protecting the freedom to ask difficult questions about those who govern and the resources they control.