Despite having a vibrant media environment with a large number of independent publications and broadcasters, Nigeria remains an incredibly dangerous country for journalists, according to the International Press Institute (IPI) in a new report which outlines trends and factors in the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) against environmental and climate journalists in Africa, and highlights the threat posed by the abuse of legal cases.
The report, released on May 7, 2026, is based on interviews and research in seven countries in West, Central, and East Africa, namely: Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, Somalia, Mozambique, and South Africa.
It looks at existing initiatives to defend journalists against vexatious legal cases, identifies legislation that is open to abuse by powerful actors, traces key trends and patterns seen across the region, and outlines recommendations to address the threat SLAPPs pose.
The report titled “SLAPPs against environmental and climate journalists in Africa: A perfect storm for harassment” noted that, compared to other countries discussed in it, “SLAPPs are relatively well-documented in Nigeria”, although there is no comprehensive database documenting all existing or historic cases.
Also, it said several high-profile legal battles against journalists in recent years have shone a light on the judicial threats facing media in the country, adding that “Alongside arbitrary detention, physical assault, verbal harassment, and censorship, environmental journalists in Nigeria also face a very real threat of SLAPPs”, a threat which it insisted is compounded by weak rule of law and broadly worded legislation prone to abuse.
The report said: “Criminal defamation laws as well as the newer Cybercrime Act are easily abused by those looking to stifle journalists’ critical reporting. This rings especially true for environmental and climate journalists as investigations into powerful multinationals and complicit government officials invite high-level backlash and legal retaliation.”
It identified one of the most well-known cases of a SLAPP against an environmental journalist in Nigeria as that involving WikkiTimes editor Yakubu Mohammed, explaining that “Following a 2023 investigation into the alleged bribing of a local terrorist group by Chinese-allied miners, Mohammed and his wife received threatening phone calls from members of the police force. Mohammed alleged that law enforcement had illegally traced his calls in order to find his friends’ and colleagues’ phone numbers.”
According to the report, “Later, a Chinese mining company, Ming Xin Mineral Separation Nigeria Limited, filed a lawsuit against Mohammed and WikkiTimes alleging defamation against their reputation, despite the company never being accused of wrongdoing in the report. The plaintiffs demanded an astronomically high payment of N10 billion (about $7.5 million) and for the investigation to be retracted alongside a public apology.”
The report narrated that in December 2025, the Bauchi State High Court ordered WikkiTimes to pay N105 million ($78,000) in damages for defaming Ming Xin and two individuals in the investigation, which the court described as “false, malicious, and defamatory”. In addition, WikkiTimes was ordered to retract its investigation and publish an apology.
Noting that WikkiTimes has since filed an appeal against the judgment, the report said the Ming Xin case exemplifies the power with which foreign-owned companies operate in Nigeria, adding, “Multinationals benefit from easily manipulated legislation and pliant local law enforcement.”
It highlighted another example in 2025, when a group of environmental activists and journalists in Cross River State were arrested for exposing land rights violations related to the Chinese-linked logging industry.
The report pointed out that activists have alleged that the arrest illustrates the willingness of law enforcement to silence dissenting voices when vested business interests are at stake, remarking that “the commonly used SLAPP analogy of David vs Goliath falls short in Nigeria.”
It stressed that as environmental journalists find themselves facing the simultaneous power of local and national government representatives, as well as multinational corporations, the situation can more accurately be described as one David vs several Goliaths.”
IPI noted that, as is commonplace across all countries discussed in the report, the limited finances of media outlets in Nigeria make it near-impossible for journalists to defend themselves against the threat of SLAPPs, adding that “Instead, it is not uncommon for defendants to reach unfavourable out-of-court settlements with claimants to avoid lengthy and costly legal battles or even imprisonment.”
It explained that those who choose not to settle, or who are not allowed to do so, are likely to face protracted legal battles and cited one such case of Agba Jalingo, publisher of Cross River Watch, who endured a 30-month trial on charges of treason, cybercrime, and terrorism before being acquitted in 2022.
IPI also noted that there is a lack of NGOs and media foundations operating in Nigeria that are willing or able to offer financial assistance or pro-bono legal support to journalists targeted by SLAPPs, saying: “While some organisations offer support to cover defendants’ legal costs, this cannot match the expenses of all journalists facing judicial harassment in Nigeria. With limited financial support only exacerbating an already dire situation, environmental journalists in Nigeria face a steep uphill battle in efforts to continue holding a powerful and exploitative extraction industry to account.
In its recommendations to African states, the report proposes:
• The repeal of criminal defamation and other restrictive civil and criminal legislation that impedes press freedom and freedom of expression, in line with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Resolution on the Safety of Journalists and Media Practitioners in Africa, Principles 22(3) and (4) of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, and the 2013 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruling which held that imprisonment for defamation violates the right to freedom of expression.
• The urgent enactment of anti-SLAPP legislation to protect journalists, activists, and human rights defenders from these types of vexatious lawsuits in line with guarantees of access to justice and free trial under Article 7, freedom of expression and right to information under Article 9, freedom of association under Article 10, freedom of assembly under Article 11, and right to participation under Article 13 of the African Charter, and with regards to the 2026 Resolution on Access to Information and the Right to a Healthy Environment, which highlights the abuse of courts to silence critics through the use of SLAPPs. In addition to enacting national-level legislation, states should provide full cooperation and support to the potential drafting and adoption of a model anti-SLAPP law at the African Union level.
• The strengthening of judicial independence to guarantee access to justice, the right to fair trial, and protection against undue influence from political and corporate actors over the judiciary.
• Conducting thorough and independent investigations into allegations of abusive litigation against journalists and holding perpetrators to account.
• The establishment of SLAPPs focal points by African States, mirroring an initiative of the European Union, by which they can task such focal points with addressing SLAPPs at a national level. The focal points should be responsible for gathering data on the use of SLAPPs, providing support for victims, and training the judiciary on how best to identify and address SLAPPs.
• Providing access to legal assistance services for victims of SLAPPs to protect their rights to free trial and access to justice as outlined by the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
It recommended that any proposed anti-SLAPP legislation should, at a minimum guarantee a clear set of criteria for identifying and defining SLAPPs, adhering to international standards set through the establishment of anti-SLAPP legislation in other regions; shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff, requiring claimants to prove the likelihood of a case being successful prior to its commencement; have an early dismissal mechanism providing opportunities for judges to throw out cases which can clearly be identified as and proven to be a SLAPP; mandate unsuccessful plaintiffs to cover the defendant’s legal costs when a case is proven to be a SLAPP; and include damages to be paid to the defendant in case of a SLAPP being determined (including, for example, compensation for reputational damage, travel costs, and/or emotional and medical toll).
Recommendations for national, regional, and international civil society organizations include:
• Monitoring and reporting the use of SLAPPs, including gathering data on SLAPP cases to help establish a more comprehensive understanding of the pervasiveness of the threat. Upon the establishment of SLAPPs focal points, share data and collaborate to help create a complete picture of SLAPPs at a national level.
• Coordination and information sharing through collaboration nationally, regionally, and internationally to share data and information, including by hosting awareness-raising sessions on the use of SLAPPs against environmental journalists. They should also share best practices on how to identify, avoid, and respond to SLAPPs.
• Advocacy for comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation by collectively pushing for the implementation of anti-SLAPP legislation and offering expertise in drafting where applicable and appropriate. Further, support pushes for and drafting of, where applicable and appropriate, a Model Anti-SLAPP Law or draft resolution on countering SLAPPs at the African Union level.
• Support the training of the judiciary on the role of a free press. Offer expertise to assist in the training of lawyers and judges on the role of a free press, media freedom, and international standards of freedom of expression, as well as on recognising and responding to SLAPPs.
Recommendations for donors and journalism support organisations are:
• Strengthen and expand advocacy, legal, and financial support for countering SLAPPs. Increase support for legal advocacy efforts aimed at developing anti-SLAPP measures. Collaborate and exchange data between all those offering support to victims of SLAPPs in Africa. Establish and support legal aid funds or pro-bono legal support networks to help environmental journalists challenge SLAPPs in courts, mitigating the need for unfavourable out-of-court settlements and self-censorship.
• Support environmental journalism. Establish funds to support the production of high-quality journalism on climate and environmental topics in Africa, mitigating the financial barriers preventing further investigations into powerful corporate actors in the field.
• Support the development of coalitions and networks between national, regional, and international CSOs working to counter SLAPPS in Africa. This includes supporting information-sharing initiatives and collaborations between climate organisations, journalist networks, and press freedom organisations.
