The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has affirmed the conviction of Professor Cyril Osim Ndifon, former Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Calabar, for soliciting pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from a female student.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, September 18, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/1798/2025, the appellate court upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which convicted Ndifon on Count One and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment without an option of fine.
The offence, prosecuted under Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, arose from electronic communications between Ndifon and a female student while he was Dean of the Faculty of Law.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, had, after a protracted trial, found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The court convicted Ndifon on November 17, 2025, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment on Count One and five years on Count Two. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Ndifon appealed, challenging both his conviction and sentence.
However, after considering the grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and two-year sentence imposed on him in respect of Count One.
The case stemmed from allegations concerning Ndifon’s conduct towards female students during his tenure as Dean of the Faculty of Law.
During the trial, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission presented evidence relating to communications between Ndifon and a female student, including electronic messages relied upon by the prosecution.
The prosecution alleged that Ndifon, by virtue of his position as Dean and the authority attached to the office, wielded significant influence over students, with Count One specifically alleging that he solicited pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from a female student.
The Federal High Court considered the testimony of prosecution witnesses alongside the electronic evidence tendered during the trial before concluding that the ingredients of the offence under the Cybercrime Act had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that finding, leaving the conviction and two-year custodial sentence on Count One intact.
Court Rejects Federal High Court Jurisdiction on Count Two
The appellate court, however, reached a different conclusion on Count Two, which concerned an allegation of conferment of undue advantage contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
On that count, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the charge under the ICPC Act.
The appellate court consequently directed that Ndifon be prosecuted on Count Two before the High Court of Cross River State.
The ICPC said it is taking steps to challenge that aspect of the judgment before the appropriate superior court, describing the jurisdictional issue as one requiring further judicial determination.
The Commission stressed that the Court of Appeal’s decision on Count Two does not affect its affirmation of Ndifon’s conviction on Count One.
“The conviction for soliciting pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from a student remains affirmed by the Court of Appeal,” the Commission said.
The ICPC, in a statement signed by its Head of Media and Public Communications, J. Okor Odey, reiterated its commitment to prosecuting corruption, abuse of office and related offences, particularly where institutional authority is alleged to have been used to exploit persons under an accused person’s authority or influence.
The Commission also said it would continue to conduct investigations and prosecutions in accordance with the law and due process.
It added that it respects the decisions of the courts and would continue to utilise available legal avenues where further judicial clarification is considered necessary.
The ICPC said it would provide further updates as the legal process progresses.
