Sexual Harassment: Appeal Court Upholds Cyril Ndifon’s 2-Year Jail Term, Orders Fresh Trial on Second Count
Cyril Ndifon 2-year jail term upheld by the Court of Appeal Abuja Division as the court affirmed the prison sentence imposed on Professor Cyril Osim Ndifon, former Dean of Law at University of Calabar, for soliciting pornographic photographs.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has affirmed the two-year prison sentence.The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has affirmed the two-year prison sentence imposed on Professor Cyril Osim Ndifon, the former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calabar, for soliciting pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from a female student. The appellate court, however, ordered a fresh prosecution on a separate count involving an allegation of conferment of undue advantage.
The judgment, delivered on September 18, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/1798/2025, upheld the decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Count One, which was prosecuted under Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015.
Background to the Case
Professor Ndifon was convicted by the Federal High Court on November 17, 2025, following a trial in which the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) presented evidence concerning electronic communications between the former dean and a female student.
The prosecution alleged that Ndifon solicited pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from the student while serving as Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calabar.
Presiding over the case, Justice James Omotosho held that the prosecution had established the offence in Count One beyond reasonable doubt. The court subsequently sentenced Ndifon to two years’ imprisonment on that count, without an option of fine.
The trial court also imposed a five-year prison sentence on Count Two, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently. Ndifon subsequently challenged his conviction and sentences before the Court of Appeal. Following consideration of the appeal, the appellate court upheld the conviction and two-year sentence relating to the cybercrime offence.
Why the Court Ordered a Fresh Trial on the Second Count
While affirming the conviction on Count One, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion regarding Count Two, which concerned an allegation of conferment of undue advantage under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
According to the ICPC, the appellate court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under the ICPC Act. It consequently directed that Ndifon be prosecuted afresh on the second count before the High Court of Cross River State.
The ICPC has indicated that it is taking steps to challenge the jurisdictional aspect of the ruling before the appropriate superior court.
The Commission maintains that the decision concerning Count Two does not invalidate or affect the conviction affirmed on Count One.
The anti-corruption agency reiterated its commitment to prosecuting corruption, abuse of office and related offences, particularly in cases where institutional authority is alleged to have been used to exploit individuals under an accused person’s influence.
The Commission also stressed its commitment to due process and respect for judicial decisions, while reserving its right to pursue further legal remedies where necessary.
The ICPC said it would provide additional updates as the legal proceedings continue.
The ruling leaves two distinct legal outcomes in the case: Ndifon’s conviction and two-year sentence on the cybercrime count have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, while the second count is to be prosecuted afresh before the High Court of Cross River State, subject to any further proceedings arising from the ICPC’s planned challenge.
The development is significant for the University of Calabar and the wider academic community, given that the case arose from allegations involving a former faculty dean and a student.
It also highlights the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are conducted before courts with the appropriate jurisdiction, while preserving the rights of both the prosecution and the accused under the law.
Ratel pulse Media _Your pulse on the news
