ABUJA, NIGERIA– The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has actually verified the conviction of Teacher Cyril Osim Ndifon, the previous Dean of the Professors of Law, University of Calabar, for obtaining adult, indecent and profane photos from a female student.
The appellate court, in a judgment provided on September 18, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/ 1798/2025, upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which convicted Ndifon on Count One and sentenced him to 2 years’ jail time without an alternative of fine.
The choice was disclosed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, which prosecuted the case.
The conviction followed evidence that Ndifon, while working as Dean of the Professors of Law, obtained pornographic, indecent and obscene photographs from a female student through electronic interaction.
The offense in Count One was prosecuted under Area 24 of the Cybercrime (Restriction, Avoidance, etc) Act, 2015.
Following a protracted trial, the Federal High Court, commanded by Justice James Omotosho, found that the prosecution had established the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
The high court founded guilty Ndifon on November 17, 2025, and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment on Count One and 5 years on Count 2, without the option of a fine. The sentences were bought to run concurrently.
READ ALSO: UniCal suspends 9 students for evaluation misbehavior.
Ndifon consequently appealed the judgment, challenging his conviction and sentence.
After thinking about the grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal verified the conviction and sentence in regard of Count One.
The appellate choice means that Ndifon’s conviction for the cybercrime-related offense remains in force list below consideration by the appellate court.
The case occurred from allegations concerning Ndifon’s conduct towards female students while he was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calabar.
During the trial, the ICPC provided evidence associating with interactions between Ndifon and a female trainee, including electronic interactions trusted by the prosecution.
The prosecution’s case was that Ndifon, by virtue of his position as Dean and the authority attached to the office, was in a position to exercise considerable influence over students of the faculty.
The claims in Count One specifically worried the solicitation of adult, indecent and obscene photos from a trainee.
In examining the proof, the Federal High Court thought about the testimony of prosecution witnesses and electronic proof tendered before it before concluding that the components of the offence under the Cybercrime Act had actually been developed beyond sensible doubt.
The Court of Appeal has now verified that finding in regard of Count One, sustaining the conviction and the two-year custodial sentence troubled Ndifon for the offence.
Fresh Trial Purchased on Second Count
On Count 2, which concerned an accusation of conferment of undue advantage contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Associated Offenses Act, 2000, the Court of Appeal took a different position on jurisdiction.
The appellate court held that the Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the offence under the ICPC Act and consequently bought that Ndifon be prosecuted on the count before the High Court of Cross River State.
The ICPC said it was taking actions to challenge the jurisdictional element of the judgment before the appropriate remarkable court.
The commission stated it thought about the issue arising from Count 2 to be a matter needing additional judicial determination.
It, however, worried that the Court of Appeal’s choice on Count Two did not impact its affirmation of the conviction on Count One.
“The conviction for getting adult, indecent and profane pictures from a student stays affirmed by the Court of Appeal,” the commission said.
The ICPC restated its commitment to prosecuting corruption, abuse of workplace and associated offenses, especially where public or institutional authority is apparently used to exploit individuals under the authority or influence of an accused person.
The commission also declared its dedication to performing examinations and prosecutions in accordance with the law and due procedure.
It said it appreciated the decisions of the courts and would continue to make use of offered legal opportunities where further judicial explanation was thought about necessary.
The commission included that it would supply further updates on the matter as the legal process advances.