The Progressive Shareholders Association of Nigeria (PSAN) has challenged the constitutionality of the Cybersecurity Fund at the Federal High Court, Lagos.

The group through their counsel, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) filed the action marked FHC/L/CS/866/2024) with PSAN and Boniface Okezie as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, while the National Assembly and four others are the defendants.

The four are the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Accountant General of the Federation (AGoF) and the Office of the National Security Adviser.

The plaintiffs are arguing that the National Assembly’s enactment of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 bypasses constitutional provisions regarding public revenue.

They are asking the court to declare that section 44 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Amendment Act 2024, which provides for a levy of 0.5 per cent (0.005) equivalent to a half per cent of all electronic transactions value by the business specified in the second schedule of the Act to be remitted to the National Cybersecurity Fund (NCF) and administered by the office of National Security Adviser (ONSA) without first being paid into the Federation Account and appropriated as required by the Constitution is ultra vires sections 59(1); 81(4) and 162 of the 1999 Constitution.

The plaintiffs also want the court to declare that given the provisions of sections 59(1); 81(4) and 162 of the Constitution to the effect that all expenditure of public revenues must be included in the yearly appropriation bill laid by the President and approved by the National Assembly, all laws made by the National Assembly creating revenues, prescribing the administration, disbursements, and directing the spending and application of the revenue that bypassed the requirement of legislative approval are null and void to the extent of their inconsistencies with the Constitutional provisions.

“An order of court that section 44 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) (e), (3), (4) (5) (6) (7) and (8) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Amendment Act 2024 is unconstitutional for providing for a levy of 0.5 per cent (0.005) equivalent to a half per cent of all electronic transactions value by the business specified in the second schedule of the Act to be remitted to the National Cybersecurity Fund (NCF) domiciled with CBN and administered by the office of National Security Adviser (ONSA) without first being paid into the Federation Account and appropriated as required by the Constitution, is null and void to the extent of its inconsistencies with the provisions of the Constitution.

“An order of this court declaring Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act 2024 null and void for being unconstitutional and in contravention with the 1999 Constitution,” they prayed.

The plaintiffs, in the alternative, prayed the court to strike down section 44 (1) (2)(a)(b)(c)(e), (3), (4)(5)(6)(7) and (8) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) for being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution

In addition, they asked for an order declaring null and void all the Acts of the National Assembly creating funds and directing revenues be paid into a special account without the revenues first being paid into the federation account and appropriated as required by the Constitution.