Mojirayo Ogunlana-Nkanga is a prolific human rights lawyer working in Nigeria. She successfully applied to attend the 2018 Media Defence West Africa Litigation Surgery. Since then she has worked on several major cases with Media Defence including the Twitter Ban case in Nigeria, the Internet Shutdown case in Togo, and the Guinea Internet Shutdown case.[1] She specialises in defending journalists and gender rights, and is currently the General Secretary of the Abuja branch of the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA).
What impact has the relationship with us had on your work?
Defending the media is something I’m passionate about. So to find an organisation which makes it seamless and offers support all the time is great. A lot of journalists that come to me do not even have money to fund their legal defences, so with Media Defence there, it has been very good. It has also opened the horizons of digital rights and allowed us to identify new and emerging issues. It’s been a wonderful ride, really.
Can you tell me more about your work in gender rights?
Gender is another passion I have. At the ECOWAS court, I was able to represent some organisations such as Amnesty International Sierra Leone, defending girls’ rights in Sierra Leone. Some of those girls were being kept away from school because they were pregnant or they had given birth. The government was trying to discriminate against them and I am happy that we were successful in that case and in so many cases like that. Last year I got a judgement in a case where women were picked up at night and tagged as prostitutes. That was in 2019. We finally got a judgement in the courtroom. In six cases a judge stated that the Nigerian government had breached their right not to be discriminated against. They were awarded between 2 million and 4 million Nigerian naira (CK) depending on the gravity of each of the cases.
Apart from litigating cases, I still volunteer for an NGO operating in Nigeria and internationally, The International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA). They educate women and children on their legal rights. I’ve been volunteering with FIDA since 2014 and I’m presently the general secretary for the Abuja branch. My term runs from 2022 to 2024. I totally believe in an equal world. And we have not gotten anything close to equality in Nigeria. Right now, I’m looking at how many female lawyers in Nigeria have been called to become Senior Advocates of Nigeria. I’m almost at the middle of the list and I’ve only been able to find 22 women. Compared to over 100 men. So it really fuels my passion.
What are the issues your face?
Well, being a woman lawyer is not easy. I really found that we do more work to prove that we are good. I worked in a law firm at some point where the men were being paid more for the same job. Until today, you still see women being treated that way and it’s unfortunate. I know that women lawyers who put their heart to doing a particular thing do it well. They do it better in fact.
In the court room you face discrimination too. You want to announce your appearance and then the judge is asking you, ‘are you a Miss or a Mrs?’. And I feel it’s very discriminatory. You don’t tell me whether I should be a Miss or a Mrs. What you should be concerned about is that my name is Mojirayo Ogunlana-Nkanga. Simple as ABC. Because you don’t ask my male colleague if they’re a Mister. Then, for the people who have sat on the bench, we have a limited number of women judges. In fact, I’m just realising that we’ve never had a female Attorney General of the federation. That’s also painful. There’s a lot of politics, you always get screened out, never in.
And how do you challenge this?
We’ve found out, of course, that when it comes to finances, it’s men who hold the economic power – but we try to challenge this is in our careers. We just keep doing our best, keep pushing. Keep advocating. Keep sensitising. We have been trying to break that ceiling. In the Nigerian bar association, as a body of lawyers, we try to run for positions, and the women gather around other women to give them support, so that she can get to where we want to go. We’ve only ever had one bar association president who is a female, they are always male. So, there’s so much we’re contending with.
How did you find the training of trainers through Media Defence? What did you enjoy? What was useful?
I’ve never seen a time that I’ve joined a Media Defence training and it has not been useful. There’s always something new to learn. Because Media Defence is actively partnering with lawyers and litigating cases, so it’s always active. This makes it easier for you to understand a particular topic. Rather than the topic being abstract, they can show you the case and how it was applied and it becomes more alive. At the Training of Trainers, I enjoyed putting the segment about presentation skills into practice. I used those notes when I was organising my own. I really took a lot away and I used it, and it worked, it was a successful litigation surgery. As I said, there’s always something useful.
What’s the long-term impact of the litigation surgery?
The participants stay in touch. We do not collaborate yet in court litigation, but we will if possible. All of us share knowledge, information and resources. We have a community, and sometimes we come in and give opinions on a particular matter which might have been filed elsewhere. With whatever we’re doing individually, we’ve gotten to the point where we can invite each other to our individual programmes. Another member of the DRAP network invited me to come and be a facilitator. So that’s another way we work together. Then, when I was doing the digital rights surgery, I invited two of the Media Defence alumni to be facilitators. So we work together like that.
Can you tell me about a case that’s important to you?
For now, it will still be the Togo case[2]. I like it because it more or less says that we have the right to the internet. We are hoping to firm that up in the Guinea case. Stamp it directly, pushing the court to say it: the right to the internet is sacrosanct to humanity. If we get to that point, it’s easier to sue a lot of governments for shutdowns. I love it because I personally believe that the internet is our life. No one should take that away from us.
What are the biggest issues you see facing freedom of expression in Nigeria right now?
The Nigerian government itself. There are a lot of governments all over the world having issues with freedom of expression, no government wants to hear you tell them what they’re doing is not right. But when you have a government that can be brazen enough to shut down Twitter for more than 200 days and not care, it is really bad. And when the judgment is about to be given, the court adjourns the case every time. It makes me worry that the government is more powerful than the people themselves that are supposed to be the power. This is where my main challenge is.
Do you worry about your safety when you speak out against them?
Yes, I do have moments when I’m worried. Of course I believe that Media Defence have always put me through the right networks. That they can always find a safe place for me. That does stop my mouth from running! But I will not be frightened. If we can’t keep it up, then what will disenfranchised people do? We have to just be strong and keep pushing and doing the best we can. Even at the cost of thinking about our lives
We are grateful to Mojirayo Ogunlana-Nkanga for her time and for participating in this interview. If you would like to read more from participants of our Digital Rights Advocates Project, you can read also our interviews with Gosego Rockfall Lekgowe, Michelle Mwiinga, Louis Gitinywa, Mercy Mutemi, Tonny Kirabira and Solomon Okedara.
[1] This is on hold due to the recent military Coup d’État in Guinea.
[2] On June 25th 2020, the ECOWAS Court handed down an important decision for freedom of expression, digital rights, and press freedom, finding that Togo, by shutting down the Internet in 2017, violated the rights of the plaintiffs – seven Togolese NGOs and a journalist. The Court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, and ordered Togo to put in place a legal framework protecting freedom of expression that is consistent with international human rights law standards. The Court also ordered Togo not to shut the Internet down again.
Recent News
Former Colombian Intelligence Director Convicted for Torture of Journalist Claudia Duque
Leer en español On August 24th, José Miguel Narváez was convicted for the aggravated and prolonged psychological torture of journalist Claudia Julieta Duque. Narváez was the Deputy Director of the now disbanded Colombian secret police, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), who subjected Duque to over two decades of relentless persecution. The verdict delivered by […]
Ex director de inteligencia colombiano condenado por torturar a la periodista Claudia Duque
Read in English El 24 de agosto, José Miguel Narváez fue condenado por tortura psicológica agravada y prolongada de la periodista Claudia Julieta Duque. Narváez llegó a ser subdirector de la ahora disuelta policía secreta colombiana, el Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS), que sometió a Duque a casi una década de implacable persecución. La sentencia […]
14 Years After The Diappearance Of Journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, His Family Continue The Fight For Answers
On 24 January 2010, just two days before a crucial presidential election in Sri Lanka, journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda disappeared. Since then, his wife, Sandya Ekneligoda, has tirelessly fought for a thorough investigation and for those responsible to be brought to justice. Yet, to date, no effective investigation has been carried out and no perpetrators have been held accountable. For 14 years, Sandya and her two sons have lived in uncertainty, hoping for Prageeth’s return with no resolution in sight. Throughout this prolonged ordeal, Sandya has faced persistent intimidation, threats and harassment for her efforts.
Prageeth, a well-known critic of the government, was last seen in the suburbs of Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital. As a cartoonist and columnist for the news website Lanka e News, he used his platform to expose corruption and speak out against abuses of power. His disappearance happened during a period of when widespread violence against journalists was recorded. From 2005 to 2015, dozens of journalists were murdered, assaulted, or disappeared, often in connection with their coverage of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war.
Initial Obstacles and Legal Efforts
Soon after Prageeth’s disappearance, Sandya encountered resistance from the authorities. In February 2010, after the police refused to register her missing person’s report, Sandya took legal action by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Sri Lankan Court of Appeal. Her petition requested that the authorities produce her husband in court. In response, the Court of Appeal directed a lower court, the Homagama Magistrate Court, to investigate the matter and report back.
Over the next few years, the Colombo Crime Division carried out a slow-moving inquiry that yielded no results. Meanwhile, government officials made baseless claims in 2011 and 2013, alleging that Prageeth was living abroad. These assertions were later discredited, and no substantial evidence was ever produced to support them.
Breakthroughs and Setbacks in the Investigation
In 2015, after a political shift ousted the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, the investigation into Prageeth’s disappearance was revitalised and transferred to the Gang and Robberies Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID). Witnesses came forward with testimonies indicating that Prageeth had been seen in an army camp after his abduction. The CID investigation found that a military intelligence unit was responsible for Prageeth’s disappearance and likely death and reported that the military failed to provide the necessary information to conduct a comprehensive investigation.
In November 2019, after more than 300 hearings, the Attorney General indicted nine military intelligence officers before the Colombo High Court on several charges related to Prageeth’s disappearance.
Political Interference and Continued Struggle
Despite this apparent progress, the path to justice has been repeatedly obstructed by political interference. Only days after the first hearing in the criminal case before Colombo High Court was held, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the former President’s brother and also former defence secretary, was elected president. Under Gotabaya’s administration, a Commission of Inquiry into Political Victimisation was established. Human Rights Watch criticised the commission, suggesting it was aimed at derailing investigations into the president’s relatives and allies.
All nine accused military intelligence officers filed complaints with the Commission, which ultimately recommended their acquittal of all charges, further delaying the case and denying justice to Prageeth’s family.
The trial remains ongoing despite many challenges, from retracted witness statements, and repeated delays in hearings to changes in judges. Additionally, the CID officer who has led the investigation into Prageeth’s disappearance has reportedly received death threats and fled the country.
A widespread issue
Prageeth’s disappearance is not an isolated event, but emblematic of a broader pattern of enforced disappearances that has affected Sri Lanka for decades. The country ranks among the highest in the world for enforced disappearances, with estimates suggesting that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have vanished since the late 1980s. These disappearances have been used as a tool to instil fear, suppress dissent, and maintain control.
Despite criminalising enforced disappearances in 2018, the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to aid affected families and uncover the truth have been criticised for their inconsistency and inefficacy.
The anguish of enforced disappearance extends far beyond the immediate act of abduction. For families like the Ekneligodas, the emotional toll is profound, leaving them in a state of constant uncertainty. Additionally, while men are most often the victims of enforced disappearances, it is frequently women who lead the search for truth after a loved one disappears. According to Amnesty International, women often face additional risks of persecution and violence while fighting for answers, as well as economic hardship due to the loss of their families’ primary earners.
The stories of individuals like Sandya and Prageeth highlight the urgent need for accountability and transparency. Addressing these abuses is essential to protecting human rights, including freedom of expression, and ensuring that those who seek justice are not silenced.
We recognise the strength and resilience of families who continue to search for their loved ones. Their courage is a powerful reminder to stand with them and to ensure their voices are heard and their demands for justice are met.
Media Defence is proud to support Sandya Ekneligoda’s legal efforts.