OPay arrest: Nigerians divided over Hafsat’s alleged fake notice as legal debate grows

The arrest of an X user, Abubakar, over the circulation of a fake notice claiming that OPay Digital Services Limited had shut down its operations has sparked a fresh debate among Nigerians over misinformation, freedom of expression and the right of companies to seek legal redress.

The controversy intensified on Friday as social media users took opposing positions on the case, with some calling for compassion because the woman allegedly deleted the post and apologised after OPay flagged it, while others argued that an apology does not automatically remove possible legal consequences for circulating false information.

The Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre had arrested Abubakar, who is linked to the X handle @HAIFAH_ER_ABBA, on September 4, 2026, after tracing the publication to the account during a digital investigation.

The Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Ani Iniedu, disclosed the arrest while speaking at a press briefing in Abuja on Wednesday, saying the NPF-NCCC commenced digital forensic analysis and online tracing after the allegedly false notice was circulated.

According to Iniedu, the investigation was launched to establish the source of the notice and identify those responsible for its dissemination before the publication was traced to the X account linked to Abubakar.

The case has since divided opinion online, particularly over the argument that Abubakar had already removed the post and issued a public apology before her arrest.

On Thursday, former presidential aide Bashir Ahmad appealed to OPay to reconsider its position on the matter, urging the company to accept the apology and resolve the issue without further escalation.

On Friday, Cool Ustaaz also criticised OPay’s handling of the case, describing the arrest as “wrong and unjustifiable.”

He argued that Abubakar had deleted the post after OPay raised concerns, pinned a public apology and cleared the air, questioning why the matter should subsequently lead to her arrest.

Cool Ustaaz further cited Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and appealed to OPay’s management to release Abubakar.

He also criticised people celebrating the arrest, arguing that such reactions were inconsistent with Islamic teachings on mercy and reconciliation.

Another user, Rboy, similarly appealed for restraint, saying that while a person’s mistake could be condemned, Nigerians should not celebrate anyone’s misfortune.

“As Muslims, we should not celebrate anyone’s misfortune,” he said, arguing that if Abubakar made a mistake, deleted the post and apologised, the matter should be handled fairly and according to the law.

However, other Nigerians rejected the argument that the apology should bring the matter to an end.

Johnmark Obiefuna described the arrest and its surrounding controversy as a possible “psyop,” questioning how quickly the issue gained traction on X.

He argued that the number of Nigerians actively using X was relatively small compared with the wider population, yet the controversy appeared to generate unusually rapid attention.

Obiefuna also questioned the circumstances surrounding the amplification of the issue and raised concerns about the introduction of betting on the platform, saying the development had contributed to his suspicion about the campaign surrounding OPay.

Taking the opposite position, Tosin Adeda argued that the alleged circulation of false information capable of damaging a business should have consequences.

He said Abubakar had been “rightfully arrested” and criticised those advocating leniency, arguing that allowing such conduct to go without accountability could encourage others to spread damaging information.

In another intervention, Maryam Aliyu urged Nigerians to remove religion and emotion from the discussion and allow the law to determine the outcome.

She referred to Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024, arguing that the provision addresses the knowing transmission of false messages where the required legal elements are established.

Aliyu stressed that the law does not automatically exempt a person from legal consequences simply because they later apologised, adding that there was no general rule under which a subsequent apology automatically extinguishes liability.

She called for the case to be determined on the basis of facts, evidence and due process rather than religion, emotions or pressure from social media users.

Black Melanin also questioned the argument that an apology should be enough to settle the matter, asking whether people accused of defaming others had always escaped consequences after apologising.

The user cited previous controversies involving alleged defamatory claims against public figures and their relatives, arguing that the same standard should apply irrespective of the identity or gender of the person involved.

Meanwhile, Talba Na Kashim proposed a different approach, urging OPay to consider turning the controversy into an opportunity by making Abubakar an ambassador who could help correct the misinformation she allegedly circulated.

According to him, such a move could allow the company to address the misinformation while also helping to resolve the controversy surrounding the arrest.

The differing reactions have consequently shifted the focus from the initial fake notice to a wider debate over how misinformation should be handled, particularly where the person involved subsequently retracts the claim.

The police, however, have not indicated that the investigation has been discontinued because of the apology.

The NPF-NCCC’s position, as disclosed by Iniedu, remains that its digital forensic investigation traced the publication to Abubakar’s X account before she was arrested on September 4.

The development has therefore placed questions of online accountability, corporate reputation, freedom of expression and due process at the centre of the public debate, with Nigerians divided over whether the appropriate response should be prosecution, reconciliation or another form of resolution.