Feature/OPED
Debt Trap and Incoming Administrations
By Jerome-Mario Chijioke Utomi
It is no longer news that some of the first-term governors-elect will face many months of unpaid workers’ salaries and mounting pension liabilities, as well as agitation for the implementation of the nationally agreed minimum wage, rising inflation, escalating prices of goods and services, and dwindling purchasing power.
These incoming governors, about 17 of them, according to reports, will have a difficult time boosting the economies of their individual states because they will take over at least N2.1 trillion in domestic debt and $1.9 billion in foreign debt from their predecessors.
It is equally common knowledge that in January 2023, Ms Patience Oniha, the Director-General of the Debt Management Office (DMO), while fielding questions from journalists at the public presentation and breakdown of the highlights of the 2023 appropriation act in Abuja, noted that the incoming federal government would inherit about N77 trillion as debt by the time President Muhammadu Buhari’s tenure ends in May.
Aside from being an indication that Nigerians should expect a tough time ahead or, better still, may not anticipate a superlative performance from the incoming administrations as they will, from inception, be overburdened by debt, what is, however, ‘newsy’ is that each time the present federal government went for these loans, Nigerians were usually told that the loan seeks to stimulate the national economy, making it more competitive by focusing on infrastructural development, delivery of inclusive growth and prioritizing the welfare of Nigerians to safeguard lives and property; equipping farmers with high tools, technology and techniques; empowering and enabling mines to operate in a safe and secured environment and training of our youths through the revival of our vocational institutions to ensure they are competitive enough to seize the opportunities that will arise for this economic revival.”
From the above, it is evident that the nation did not arrive at its present state of indebtedness by accident but through a well-programmed plan of actions and inactions that engineered national poverty and bred indebtedness. The state of affairs dates back to so many years in the life of the present federal government.
To explain, for years, we were as a nation warned with mountains of evidence that this was coming, it was also pointed out that under the present condition of indebtedness, it may be thought audacious to talk of creating a better society while the country battles with the problems of battered economy arising from indebtedness, yet, our leaders who are never ready to serve or save the citizens ignored the warnings describing it as a prank. Now we have learnt a very ‘’useful’’ lesson that we can no longer ignore.
In 2019, the country’s rising debt profile dominated discussion when the Senate opened debate on the general principles of the 2019 Appropriation Bill. Most of the contributors to the referenced debate asked the executive to exercise some level of caution on its borrowing plan in order not to return the country to a heavily indebted nation it exited in 2005 through Paris Club debt relief.
Senate Leader, Mr Ahmed Lawan (as he then was) kicked off the debate when he read “A Bill for an Act to authorize the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation the total sum of N8,826,636,578,915 only, of which N492,360,342,965 only is for Statutory Transfers, N2,264,014,113,092 only, is for Debt Service, N4,038,557,664,767 only, is for Recurrent (Non-Debt) Expenditure while the sum of N2,031,754,458,902 only is for contribution to the Development Fund for capital Expenditure for the year ending on 31st day of December 2019.”
While noting that the budget deficit will be funded through borrowing, Lawan, among other things, stated, “About 89% of the deficit (N1.65 trillion) will be financed through new borrowings while about N210 billion is expected from the proceeds of privatization of some public enterprises. Debt Service/Revenue Ratio, which was high as 69% in 2017, has led to concerns being raised about the sustainability of the nation’s debt.”
Reacting to Lawan’s words, many Nigerians raised the alarm about the country’s rising debt profile. They noted that though the budget estimates should be given expeditious consideration and passage in view of the time already lost, the borrowing plan contained in the Bill should be properly scrutinized. They insisted that scrutinizing the borrowing plan became necessary to prevent the country from exceeding its borrowing limit when juxtaposed with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio.
Even some Senators, in their submissions, frowned at the nation’s increased borrowing proposals on our yearly budget, which they described as becoming unbearable.
“Yes, money must be sought by any government to fund infrastructure, but it must not be solely anchored on borrowing, which in the long run, will take the country back to a problem it had earlier solved.
“Besides, there are other creative ways of funding such highly needed infrastructure.”
Others at that time were particularly not happy that the debt profile of the country would soon rise to $60 billion from less than $20 billion it was before the present government came to power in 2015. While they noted that the components of the $60 billion debt profile include $23 billion external debt and $20 billion local debts, these concerned Nigerians observed with dissatisfaction that another $12 billion was already being processed for presentation to the National Assembly to finance Port Harcourt to Maiduguri rail lines.
Still on the 2019 budget borrowing proposal, it noted that “Nigeria is gradually turning to a chartered borrowing nation under this government all in the name of funding infrastructure. “This must be stopped because the future of the country and in particular, lives of generations yet unborn are being put in danger.” Even with the high level of indebtedness of the country, “the government in power is planning to further devalue the Naira to about N500 to one US dollar.”
Similarly, in February 2022, economic experts going by media reports urged the Federal Government to seek a debt moratorium and reduce the cost of governance to reduce funds expended on debt servicing, as it stands as the best available option.
This, according to them, will enable the government to suspend payment for now and re-strategize – particularly, the government cannot continue to service its rising debt profile at the expense of meeting the competing needs of the people, Economic analysts recently handed a similar expert warning that the federal government’s soaring borrowings could eventually suffocate the country if not mitigated.
In the first quarter of 2022, while speaking in Akure, Ondo State capital, at the 32nd annual Seminar for Finance Correspondents and Business Editors themed: ‘Exchange Rate Management and Economic Diversification in Nigeria: The Pave Option,’ the experts hinted that the government’s plans a fresh N6.3 trillion debt might be added to the current debt stock of N39.556 trillion ($95.779 billion as at December 31, 2021) to ultimately push the country’s total debt stock to N45.86 trillion by December 2022.
Notwithstanding this unhealthy trend, they argued it was high time the country invested more in boosting local production and export-oriented infrastructure before the huge debt burden sank the country.
Indeed, from the above torrents of explanation/concern expressed by these experts, this piece clearly agrees that ‘Nigeria’s debt stock has finally become an issue that calls for a more drastic approach to support the fiscal and monetary authorities to tow the nation’s economy out of the doldrums.
Qualifying the above sad account as a bad commentary is the awareness that despite these prophecies of foreknowledge which deals with what is certain to come, and prophesy of denunciation, which on its part, tells what is to come if the present situation is not changed; both acting as information and warning respectively, the President Muhammadu Buhari led federal government has become even more entrenched in borrowing, ignoring these warning signals.
In 2020, one of the reputable national newspapers in Nigeria, in its editorial comment, among other observations, noted that Nigeria would be facing another round of fiscal headwinds this year with the mix of $83 billion debt, rising recurrent expenditure, increased cost of debt servicing; sustained fall in revenue; and about $22 billion debt plan waiting for legislative approval. It may be worse if the anticipated shocks from the global economy, like Brexit, the United States-China trade war and the interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Bank, go awry.
The nation’s debt stock, currently at $83 billion, comes with a huge debt service provision in excess of N2.1 trillion in 2019, but set to rise in 2020. This challenge stems from the country’s revenue crisis, which has remained unabating in the last five years, while the borrowings have persisted, an indication that the economy has been primed for recurring tough outcomes, the report concluded.
The situation says something else.
Another news report within the same time frame indicated that the federal government made a total of N3.25 trillion in 2020, out of which it spent N2.34 trillion on debt servicing within the year. The report underlined that 72 per cent of the government’s revenue was spent on debt servicing. It also puts the government’s debt servicing to revenue ratio at 72 per cent.
It was in the news that PricewaterhouseCoopers, a global professional services network of firms operating as partnerships under the PwC brand, in a report entitled; ‘Nigeria Economic Alert: Assessing the 2021 FGN Budget’, warned that the increasing cost of servicing the debt would continue to weigh on the federal government’s revenue profile.
It said, “Actual debt servicing cost in 2020 stood at N3.27 trillion and represented about 10 per cent over the budgeted amount of N2.95 trillion. This puts the debt-to-revenue ratio at approximately 83 per cent, nearly double the 46 per cent that was budgeted.
This implies that about N83 out of every N100, the federal government earned was used to settle interest payments for outstanding domestic and foreign debts within the reference period. In 2021, the FG planned to spend N3.32 trillion to service its outstanding debt. This is slightly higher than the N2.95 trillion budgeted in 2020.”
Today, such fears raised cannot be described as unfounded, just as this author doesn’t need to be an economist to know that as a nation, we have become a high-risk borrower.
Looking at the above facts, this piece holds the opinion that the present debt profile presently crushing the country may not have occurred by accident.
And, even as the nation goes on a borrowing spree and speeds on the ‘borrowing lane’, and at a time the World Bank indicates that “almost half of the poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa live in just five countries: and they are in this order, namely; Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Madagascar, the situation becomes more painful when one remembers that no one, not even the federal government can truly explain the objective of these loans and whether they were utilized in the masses best interest.
It would have been understandable if these loans were taken to build a standard rail system in the country that would assist the poor village farmers in Benue/Kano and other remote villages situated in the landlocked parts of the country, moving their produce to the food disadvantaged cities in the south in ways that will help the poor farmers earn more money, contribute to lower food prices in Lagos and other cities through the impact on the operation of the market, increase the welfare of household both in Kano, Benue, Lagos and others while improving food security in the country, reduce stress/pressure daily mounted on Nigerian roads by articulated/haulage vehicles and drastically reduce road accidents on our major highways.
Again, it would have been pardonable if the loan were deployed to revitalise the nation’s electricity sector, to re-introduce a sustainable power roadmap that will erase the epileptic power challenge in the country and restore the health and vitality of the nation’s socioeconomic life while improving small and medium scale business in the country.
What about the nation’s refineries?
This piece recalls now with nostalgia that one of the popular demands during the fuel subsidy removal protest in January 2012, under President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s administration, was that the federal government should take measures to strengthen corporate governance in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited, as well as in the oil and gas sector as a whole. This is because of the belief that weak structures made it possible for endemic corruption in the management of both the downstream and upstream sectors of the oil and gas industry.
The present administration as part of its campaign promise in 2015, agreed to ensure a better deal for Nigerians, but eight years after such demand was made and Jonathan gone, the three government-owned refineries in the country have not been able to function at full capacity as promised by the present administration.
Today, if there is anything that Nigerians wish that the FG should accomplish quickly, it is getting the refineries to function optimally as well as make the NNPC more accountable to the people. What happened under President Jonathan has become child’s play when compared with the present happenings in Nigeria’s oil/gas and electricity sectors.
What the above tells us as a country is that more work needs to be done, and more reforms need to be made; that as a nation, we are poor not because of our geographical location or due to the absence of mineral/natural resources but because our leaders fail to take decisions that engineer prosperity. And we cannot solve our socio-economic challenges with the same thinking we used when we created it.
Definitely, this piece may not unfold the answers to these challenges completely, but there are a few sectors that the incoming administration must start from.
The first that comes to mind is the urgent need for diversification of the nation’s revenue sources. Revenue diversification, from what development experts are saying, will provide options for the nation to reduce financial risks and increase national economic stability, as a decline in a particular revenue source might be offset by an increase in other revenue sources.
Finally, within this period of economic vulnerability, a new awareness that must not be allowed to go with political winds is the expert warning that accumulated debt can hinder a country’s development, especially when most of the revenue generated is used to service debt.
Jerome-Mario is the programme coordinator (Media and Public Policy) for Social and Economic Justice Advocacy (SEJA). He can be reached via [email protected]/08032725374
By Ivie Abiamuwe
Nigeria’s economic resilience has historically been driven by its nano and micro-enterprises, ranging from roadside kiosks to rapidly growing digital vendors. These businesses form a critical component of economic activity, employment generation, and community stability across the country.
These nano and micro-businesses form the bedrock of the country’s economic drive. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) account for approximately 96% of businesses in Nigeria, contributing nearly 48% to the national GDP and employing over 80% of the workforce. Yet, despite their fundamental importance, many of these businesses operate without a formal financial structure or long-term strategic planning.
In 2026, this informal model is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As Nigeria continues to pursue broader economic ambitions, the transition from subsistence operations to strategic participation in the digital value chain is essential. Financial readiness has moved from being a social choice to a macroeconomic imperative.
A common misconception is that nano-SMEs are too small to integrate into formal financial systems. In reality, their collective impact is the primary engine of community stability. However, many operate with limited financial visibility, mixing personal and business finances and lacking the verifiable transaction histories required for credit assessments by financial institutions.
Businesses operating outside formal financial systems may face limitations in accessing structured financing and growth opportunities
Financial readiness begins with digital visibility. In today’s economy, businesses operating outside formal financial systems may face limitations in accessing structured financing and growth opportunities. Digital transactions and traceable expenses form a “financial footprint.” FairMoney Microfinance Bank provides digital financial solutions designed to support entrepreneurs in transitioning from informal cash-based operations to more structured financial practices.
The issue of credit remains a significant hurdle. While many entrepreneurs avoid formal borrowing, credit, when used responsibly, is a strategic growth tool rather than a liability. Building a track record of disciplined repayment increases trust and may improve access to financing opportunities, subject to applicable risk assessment and eligibility requirements.
Access to responsible and appropriately structured financial solutions can help small businesses manage short-term liquidity pressures, support inventory cycles, and improve operational resilience, subject to applicable terms and conditions. For longer-term scaling, fixed-term products allow entrepreneurs to lock away funds and accrue interest at applicable rates, supporting financial resilience over time.
One of the most persistent challenges facing nano-SMEs is the inability to separate personal and business finances. Without this separation, it is nearly impossible to determine if a business is truly profitable. Establishing a dedicated business account is a critical step toward the data-driven decision-making required to scale.
The Nigerian entrepreneur is globally recognised for resilience, but in a tightening regulatory framework, survival alone is no longer sufficient. The future belongs to businesses that are structured and financially prepared.
Financial readiness is the bridge between subsistence entrepreneurship and sustainable value creation. It transforms daily income into a system for building long-term capital. Nigeria does not lack entrepreneurial capacity; what is required is a stronger financial and structural foundation capable of translating that entrepreneurial energy into sustainable economic growth. For nano-SMEs, bridging the digital and structural gap is no longer optional—it is essential for long-term growth, resilience, and participation in Nigeria’s evolving economy.
Ivie Abiamuwe is the Director of Business Banking at FairMoney Business
By Sani Abdulrazak, PhD
It is a boom season for Nigerian Governors; at no time before have they had it this much. Huge sums of money are being allocated to them every month. To whom much is given, they say, much is expected. What are the visible things they have put in place commensurate with the allocations they receive? How do we hold them accountable for such?
Nigeria today faces one of the widest electricity supply gaps in the world. Despite having an installed generation capacity of over 13,000 megawatts, the country still struggles to generate and distribute between 4,000 and 5,500 megawatts on most days for a population exceeding 220 million people. Experts estimate that Nigeria requires at least 30,000 megawatts to enjoy stable and functional electricity, while industrial economies of comparable size generate far more. Recent reports from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and industry operators revealed that many power plants operate below 40 per cent capacity due to gas shortages, poor infrastructure, transmission bottlenecks, and weak investment. The consequences are devastating. Small businesses spend billions annually on diesel and petrol generators. Manufacturers relocate to neighbouring countries with better energy systems. Investors avoid regions where production costs are inflated by unstable electricity. According to several business and energy reports, unreliable electricity continues to cost Nigeria billions of dollars yearly in lost productivity, collapsed businesses, unemployment, and reduced foreign direct investment. In Northern Nigeria, especially, where industrialisation is already fragile, unstable electricity has become a direct enemy of economic growth, security, and prosperity.
Nothing will boost and improve our local economy, especially here in Northern Nigeria, like the provision of stable electricity. Recently, the president smartly threw the ball into our Governors’ court by signing the Electricity Act. The Electricity Act by Bola Ahmed Tinubu gave states the power to decentralise electricity. We have seen states like Abia State, Lagos State and Ogun State grabbing the opportunity with both hands in order to boost the local economy.
It left me wondering what Northern states are doing about this. Are our people aware of this great opportunity to compel our Northern Governors to provide stable electricity to us? Or are they so consumed with who occupies what office? Or “Falle nawa ne”? Why are our Northern know-it-all Analysts and intellectuals silent about this now, only to hammer on the same issue years later when the opportunity is probably no longer there? Will our traditional rulers save us by echoing it into our leaders’ ears?
Electricity is no longer merely a social amenity; it is the backbone of modern civilisation. Every thriving economy is powered first by energy before politics, rhetoric, or propaganda. Stable electricity determines whether factories operate efficiently, whether hospitals can preserve lives, whether schools can provide quality learning environments, whether technology hubs can emerge, and whether local entrepreneurs can compete globally. Nations do not industrialise in darkness. History has repeatedly shown that economic revolutions are built upon reliable energy systems. From China to India, from South Korea to Rwanda, serious governments understood that a constant electricity supply is the oxygen of development.
Sadly, Northern Nigeria still behaves as though electricity is a luxury rather than an economic necessity. In many parts of the region, communities spend more time discussing political appointments and ethnic calculations than discussing energy policy, industrial development, or economic competitiveness. Yet, no serious investor will establish industries where electricity remains uncertain for most hours of the day. No meaningful manufacturing revolution can occur where generators roar louder than factories. Our youths cannot become globally competitive in digital innovation when power outages interrupt learning, research, and productivity every few hours.
What makes the current moment even more painful is that the constitutional and legal opportunity now exists for states to take charge of their electricity future. The decentralisation enabled by the Electricity Act allows states to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity independently under their own regulatory frameworks. This means governors can no longer endlessly blame Abuja for every darkness their people endure. The era of absolute dependence on the national grid is gradually fading. States willing to think ahead can establish independent power projects, attract private investors, support renewable energy initiatives, and create regional energy markets capable of transforming their economies.
Already, signs of this new direction are emerging. Lagos State has moved aggressively toward controlling its electricity market and attracting independent suppliers. Energy reforms and localised agreements are being pursued to reduce dependence on the unstable national grid and improve supply to businesses and residents. Other states are beginning to recognise that power supply is no longer solely the responsibility of the Federal Government. The question now is whether Northern states will rise to the occasion or continue watching from the sidelines while others move ahead economically.
Even though the “fabled” Northern elites and elders are still struggling to define what regional development is, let alone develop a realistic framework and awareness about it, we would be grateful if they could lend a hand in the actualisation of a stable power supply, the stream that waters the root of development.
Kaduna State, for example, has a Governor amongst Governors, a serving Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, and two senior, powerful ministers. I hope, pray, and expect Kaduna State to take the lead in the North in providing a stable, uninterrupted power supply to its people. Kaduna possesses the intellectual capacity, political influence, industrial history, and strategic importance to become the energy model for Northern Nigeria. If properly harnessed, stable electricity in Kaduna alone could revive industries, empower small businesses, strengthen agriculture processing, create jobs for thousands of youths, and attract investors back into the state.
Northern Nigeria cannot continue to lament insecurity, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment while ignoring one of the foundational pillars of economic transformation. Stable electricity will not solve every problem overnight, but without it, many other solutions will remain ineffective. We must begin to ask tougher questions of those entrusted with public resources. Citizens must move beyond political sentiments and demand measurable development. Governors who receive enormous allocations monthly must show visible investments in energy infrastructure, industrial expansion, and economic productivity.
The future belongs to regions that understand that development is deliberate, not accidental. We can no longer afford leadership without vision or citizens without demands. The opportunity is here. The law is now favourable. The resources are available. What remains is political will, public pressure, and leadership that understands that darkness has never built any civilisation.
Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Sani Abdulrazak writes from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and can be reached via email at [email protected]
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn