By Kelechi Okoronkwo PhD
The Executive Chairman of Nigeria’s anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Olanipekun Olukoyede, on Tuesday quoted his own research while declaring that 6 out of 10 Nigerian university students are into cybercrimes. This means that 60 percent of the Nigerian students are into cybercrimes, or what is popularly known as “Yahoo Yahoo.” This is problematic and alarming.
The choice of the word “declaring” is intentional because the EFCC appears to be a competent authority to speak on this subject, given its access to people’s data through bank accounts and transactions. The EFCC may also have access to some privileged information.
Normally, when someone, especially a Chief Executive of a government institution, makes such a statement, it is backed with sufficient and convincing data. This is because the information has far-reaching implications not only for Nigerian students but also for all Nigerians, both at home and abroad.
However, Olukoyede’s information appears to be short of expected data. This explains why some people ask for the source of his information. Sections of the media quoted Olukoyede as saying: “My research in the last one year has shown that about six out of 10 students in our universities are into cybercrime. It is a very disturbing situation.” Although statements like this are never reckless, it should be presented in a way that makes it sound credible.
For this information to appear convincing, it should at least demonstrate knowledge of the total number of Nigerian students in tertiary institutions, the number of Nigerian tertiary institutions, the institutions with the highest and lowest number of students involved in cybercrimes, the number of students caught and the number prosecuted on involvement in cybercrimes. This way, the EFCC Chairman would sound more authoritative and would be better able to convince his listeners that he has data to support his claims. Other than this, it is better not to make such statements.
People who travel beyond the shores of their countries often observe that the international community, especially developed societies, pays attention to stories about crime, fraud, violence, and extreme cultural behaviours. When a story connects a people to such social vices, it provides additional grounds for them to be hated, profiled, and discriminated against when they are among others.
Nigerians are a good example in this circumstance. There is already a barrage of negative stories about Nigerians. These include stories of fraud, extremism, barbaric cultures, ritual killings, and various forms of violence. Quite often, contemporaries and detractors of innocent Nigerian citizens tend to use these stories as labels. Sometimes, the only defense left is to question the source of the information.
This goes beyond the immediate controversy surrounding the EFCC’s claim to the broader and more consequential issue of data governance in Nigeria. Data is not merely a supporting element in public discourse; it is the foundation upon which policy, perception, and national credibility are built. When addressing weighty national issues whether cybercrime, unemployment, health, or security, data must be treated as a strategic asset, not a rhetorical tool.
Away from the EFCC. In many other instances, individuals occupying influential positions in both public and private sectors have demonstrated a tendency to deploy statistics without sufficient verification, context, or methodological backing. This culture of “figure inflation” or “data improvisation” is not only problematic but also dangerous. It undermines informed decision-making, weakens institutional trust, and distorts public understanding of critical issues.
At its core, data governance refers to the framework of policies, standards, and practices that ensure data is accurate, consistent, secure, and responsibly used. In functional systems, data governance establishes clear protocols for how data is collected, validated, stored, analysed, and communicated. It enforces accountability, ensuring that any figure presented in the public domain can be traced back to a verifiable source and methodology.
The absence of a strong data governance culture in Nigeria has several implications. First is the issue of a credibility deficit. When public officials make claims that cannot be substantiated, it erodes confidence not only in the individual but also in the institution they represent. Over time, this leads to broader skepticism toward government data, even when it is accurate. In such an environment, citizens begin to rely more on speculation, rumours, or external sources, thereby weakening the authority of domestic institutions.
Second is the problem of policy misalignment. Effective policymaking depends on accurate diagnosis. If the data used to define a problem is flawed, then the solutions derived from it are likely to be ineffective or even counterproductive. For example, overstating the prevalence of a particular issue may lead to disproportionate allocation of resources, while underreporting it may result in neglect. In both cases, the absence of reliable data leads to inefficient governance outcomes.
Third is the risk of social and reputational harm. As seen in discussions around crime statistics, poorly governed data can reinforce stereotypes, stigmatize groups, and shape narratives that have long-term consequences. In a globalized world, where information travels rapidly across borders, inaccurate or exaggerated data can affect how a nation and its citizens are perceived internationally. This has implications for diplomacy, investment, migration, and even cultural exchange.
A robust data governance framework would address these challenges by institutionalizing standards of evidence. This includes mandatory disclosure of data sources, clarity in definitions, transparency in methodology, and acknowledgment of limitations. It also involves the establishment of independent bodies or oversight mechanisms that can audit and validate public data claims, ensuring that figures released into the public domain meet minimum thresholds of reliability.
Equally important is the need for capacity building. Data governance is not only about rules; it is about competence. Public officials, policymakers, and media practitioners must be equipped with the skills to understand, interpret, and communicate data responsibly. Without this capacity, even well-intentioned actors may inadvertently misrepresent information.
The media also has a critical role to play. As intermediaries between data producers and the public, journalists must move beyond merely reporting figures to interrogating them. This involves asking pertinent questions: What is the source of this data? How was it collected? What are its limitations? By doing so, the media can act as a safeguard against the uncritical dissemination of questionable statistics.
Ultimately, strengthening data governance in Nigeria requires a shift in mindset, from viewing data as a tool for persuasion to recognizing it as a public good that demands stewardship. It requires a commitment to accuracy over sensationalism, evidence over assumption, and transparency over opacity.
In a society striving for development and global competitiveness, the integrity of data cannot be compromised. Numbers shape narratives, and narratives shape realities. When figures are “thrown around recklessly,” they do not merely misinform, they mislead, and in doing so, they can influence decisions that affect millions of lives. Strengthening data governance, therefore, is not just a technical necessity; it is a national imperative.
If the EFCC believes that making data on Nigerian students’ involvement in cybercrime public will be beneficial, then such data should be made fully available. This will make the information more credible and clear all doubts.
@Kelechukwu Okoronkwo, PhD
