19. The Applicant further maintains that Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act is also unconstitutional in view of Article 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as it constitutes an interference in the rights it enjoys, for the following reasons: i. It is not established by law; ii. It is not in pursuit of a legitimate objective; iii. It is not reasonably justified because it is not a necessary or proportionate restriction on the right. 20. That Section 24 nº1 al. a) contains the word “offensive” without defining it or indicating its degrees and or limits, thus making it unclear to individuals who need to regulate their behavior in accordance with this provision which is susceptible to abuse. Due to the vague nature of the term, legitimate journalistic activity may be included in the scope of this provision and be subject to the threat of severe criminal sanctions, which is disproportionate and unnecessary; 21. That section 24 of the cybercrime Act is not drafted with sufficient precision to allow an individual to predict whether his behavior would constitute an offense under the provision. That as a penal provision, it should be written in a strict and unambiguous way. 22. In addition, it does not provide for safeguards against law enforcement officers, who rely on this vague language to freely exercise the discretionary power to arrest, accuse, prosecute and or convict a person. The Applicant further claimed that the sanctions provided for in Section 24 of the Act do not constitute reasonably justified restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and press, they constitute a restriction on the right to freedom of expression that is not established by law, and do not pursue a legitimate objective and they are neither necessary nor proportional. 23. The Applicant concluded that the provisions of Section 24 do not meet the three requirements regarding the validity of laws that aim at restricting freedom of 6