FUOYE Vice-Chancellor Ogunwole, Two Others Charged With Cybercrime Over Alleged Data Interception
The Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), Professor Joshua Ogunwole, and two others have been charged with cybercrime over allegations that they unlawfully intercepted a woman’s telephone and computer network, bringing questions about digital privacy and the legal limits of accessing electronic communications into focus.
The other defendants are Mufutau Ibrahim and Tajudeen Opoola. The charges were filed by the Inspector-General of Police on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before the Federal High Court in Lagos, according to the charge sheet obtained by PUNCH.
The document, dated October 2, 2026, alleges that the offences occurred on August 23 at the university in Ekiti State. The defendants are accused of conspiring to intercept computer data belonging to Dr Adeola Kehinde without authorisation and of using technical means to intercept the transmission of her data and its contents.
One of the counts also accuses the defendants of causing the unauthorised modification of data held in Kehinde’s computer system or network. Another alleges that they abused their offices by carrying out an arbitrary act prejudicial to her rights through the interception of her telephone and computer network.
The alleged cybercrime offences are brought under Sections 27(1)(b), 12(1) and 16(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024. The additional allegation relating to abuse of office is linked to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Act.
The case highlights the legal protections surrounding electronic communications and computer data. Under Nigerian law, unlawful interception is not simply a question of whether someone has obtained access to information. The circumstances of the access, the use of technical means and the presence or absence of lawful authority can all be relevant to determining whether an offence has been committed.
This distinction is particularly important in institutional settings, where administrators may have responsibilities involving staff, university systems and internal investigations. Such responsibilities do not automatically confer unrestricted authority to access another person’s private communications or alter data. Any exercise of authority must remain within the limits established by law.
The allegations also demonstrate how disputes involving digital information can develop into criminal proceedings. Where the prosecution alleges unauthorised interception or modification of computer data, the legal process must establish the conduct of each defendant and whether the statutory requirements of the alleged offences have been satisfied.
However, the filing of charges does not establish guilt. The allegations against Ogunwole, Ibrahim and Opoola remain to be determined by the court, and the charge sheet does not indicate when they will be arraigned or whether they have entered pleas.
For university administrators and other professionals entrusted with institutional authority, the case is a reminder that access to systems and information must be distinguished from the legal right to use that access in any particular manner. Ultimately, the proceedings will depend on the evidence presented and the court’s determination of whether the alleged conduct falls within the offences charged.
