Appeal Court Upholds Ex-UNICAL Law Dean's Conviction on Cybercrime Charge

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction and two-year prison sentence of Prof. Cyril Osim Ndifon, the former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calabar, for seeking sexually explicit and indecent images from a female student. J. Okor Odey, who heads Media and Public Communications at the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, made this known in a statement on Friday, September 25. In its judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/1798/2025, the appellate court affirmed the Federal High Court, Abuja's ruling that found Prof. Ndifon guilty on one count and imposed two years in prison with no option of a fine. The conviction rested on evidence that Ndifon, while serving as Dean, used electronic communication to ask a female student for explicit, indecent and obscene pictures. Count One was brought under Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015. Following a prolonged trial, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, determined that the prosecution had proved the offence against the former Dean beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court convicted Prof. Ndifon on November 17, 2025, handing him two years on Count One and five years on Count Two, with no option of a fine. The terms were ordered to run at the same time. Prof. Ndifon appealed to the Court of Appeal, disputing the conviction and sentence. After considering the grounds, the appellate court upheld both the conviction and sentence on Count One. The ICPC noted that the appellate court's decision means Prof. Ndifon's conviction on the cybercrime offence in Count One has been sustained. The case began with allegations regarding Prof. Ndifon's conduct toward female students while he was Dean. At trial, the ICPC submitted evidence about communications between the appellant and a female student, including electronic messages that the prosecution relied on. The prosecution maintained that Prof. Ndifon, because of his office as Dean and the authority it carried, could exercise considerable influence over Faculty students. Count One specifically concerned the solicitation of explicit, indecent and obscene images from a student. In weighing the evidence, the Federal High Court reviewed prosecution witness testimony and electronic evidence presented to it. It concluded that the elements of the offence under the Cybercrime Act had been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that finding on Count One, leaving the conviction and two-year custodial sentence intact for that offence. On Count Two, which alleged the granting of an undue advantage contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, the Court of Appeal took a different view on jurisdiction. It held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the offence under the ICPC Act and ordered the Respondent to start prosecution of Prof. Ndifon on that count before the High Court of Cross River State. Odey said the ICPC is taking steps to contest this part of the judgment before the appropriate superior court. He said the Commission regards the jurisdictional issue from Count Two as requiring further judicial resolution. Odey said the Commission emphasized that the appellate court's ruling on Count Two does not affect its affirmation of the conviction on Count One. He said the conviction for soliciting explicit, indecent and obscene images from a student remains affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Commission repeated its commitment to prosecuting corruption, abuse of office and related offences, particularly where public or institutional authority is allegedly used to exploit persons under an accused person's authority or influence. The ICPC also reaffirmed that its investigations and prosecutions are carried out strictly within the law and in accordance with due process. Odey said the Commission respects court decisions and will continue to pursue available legal avenues where it deems further judicial clarification necessary, adding that updates will be provided as the legal process advances.