JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against President Bola Tinubu’s administration for “failure to repeal the clearly unlawful mass telephone tapping regulations known as the ‘Authorized Communications Interception Regulations, 2019.’”
The lawsuit follows allegations by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai that the telephone conversations of National Security Advisor (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu were tapped. El-Rufai reportedly stated, “The NSA’s phone was tapped. They did the same to our calls, and we heard him say they should arrest me.”
In the lawsuit numbered ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26 filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court, Abuja, SERAP seeks: “a declaration that the government’s failure to repeal the Interception of Communications Regulations is unlawful and constitutes a violation of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the government’s failure to repeal the Communications Interception Regulation constitutes official support for the unlawful mass telephone tapping regulation, as the Regulation is clearly unlawful, and violates the rule of law, democratic principles, and the right to privacy.”
SERAP is also seeking “an order directing and compelling the Nigerian government to immediately repeal the Communications Interception Regulations, and initiate a legislative process to ensure that any interception regulations comply with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
In its lawsuit, SERAP argued that, “The regulations establish a regime of mass telephone tapping that violates Nigeria’s constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights including privacy and freedom of expression.”
SERAP also believes that, “When powers affecting human rights are exercised in secret and concentrated in political authorities without independent oversight, the risk of abuse is enormous.”
According to SERAP, “Oversight measures that lack the need for strict proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be used against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers.”
READ ALSO: Peter Okoye opens up about hidden struggles behind fame
SERAP also argued that, “These regulations also raise serious concerns as Nigeria’s 2027 general elections approach. Broad and poorly policed interception powers create a real risk of abuse during politically sensitive times.”
The lawsuit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers, Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni, reads in part: “Secret surveillance and mass data collection creates a permanent risk of misuse, profiling and abuse, especially considering the powerful technology available to state authorities.”
“The mere retention or retention of personal data relating to a person’s private life constitutes an interference with this right—whether or not the data is subsequently accessed or used.”
“In an election climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can undermine political organizing, investigative reporting, and voter mobilization.”
“This regulation provides overly broad and unclear authority to intercept communications for reasons such as ‘national security,’ ‘economic welfare,’ and ‘public emergency,’ without adequate legal protections, independent oversight, transparency, or effective legal remedies.”
“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources, and open democratic debate. Misuse of intercepted data for purposes of intimidation, political gain, or disinformation will fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.”
“By 2027, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorization and supported by effective legal remedies. Without strong safeguards, these Regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process.”
“Any restrictions on privacy rights must strictly comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The regulations fail all three tests.”
“The Regulation normalizes surveillance as a routine state practice and reverses the presumption of privacy by criminalizing interception except as permitted under the Regulation.”
“The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has unequivocally stated the clear: mass surveillance programs based on the indiscriminate and pervasive collection of personal data are arbitrary and will never meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.”
“The Nigerian government has a positive obligation to adopt clear laws, effective safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and accessible solutions to prevent abuse. These duties apply not only to state institutions but also to private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.”
“The Nigerian Communications Commission (Commission) while purportedly exercising its powers under section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003 adopted the ‘Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 (Regulation).”
“Under Regulation 4, broad interception powers are granted to the National Security Advisor and the State Security Agency, with little clarity regarding the scope or limits of those powers.”
“This provision also covers communications within and outside Nigeria and provides blanket immunity to licensees acting ‘in good faith.’ Such broad and unclear powers pose a significant risk of abuse, including political abuse.”
“Inconsistencies in the Regulations raise serious legal issues. Regulation 4(1) limits interception powers to the National Security Advisor (NSA) and the State Security Agency (SSS), and Regulation 12(1) reaffirms this limitation.”
“However, Regulation 23 on ‘Interpretation’ expands the category of ‘authorized agencies’ to include additional agencies such as the Nigerian Police, the National Intelligence Service, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and such other agencies as may be designated by the Commission.”
“This creates ambiguity and undermines legal certainty. Nigerians cannot reasonably know which authorities have the authority to intercept their communications, making these Regulations unpredictable and vulnerable to arbitrary application and abuse.”
“By delegating authority to the Commission to expand the list at its discretion, Regulation 23 effectively grants unfettered administrative powers, contrary to the constitutional guarantee of privacy under Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution and the international human rights obligations binding on Nigeria.”
“Regulatory ambiguity like this threatens the rule of law, weakens accountability mechanisms, and increases the risk of abuse, especially in politically sensitive contexts or during elections. Clear and narrow statutory boundaries are essential wherever state authorities are empowered to interfere with private communications.”
“Regulation 8 is particularly troubling, as it allows warrantless interception in situations involving consent, threats to life, or actions in the ‘ordinary course of business.’ This rationale is overly broad and clearly susceptible to abuse.”
“Even when a writ is required, applications are made ex parte and without adversarial safeguards. Grounds such as ‘national security’ and ‘economic welfare’ are not adequately defined, thereby undermining the principles of legality and certainty.”
“This rule also does not require notification of individuals who are the subject of surveillance, either during or after an interception. Without notification, an individual’s ability to challenge unlawful surveillance is severely weakened.”
“Personal communications are part of an individual’s intimate environment and personal development. In the digital age, protecting these rights requires extraordinary vigilance.”
“The regulations are supposed to establish under Regulation 2 a ‘legal and regulatory framework for the lawful interception of communications in Nigeria.’”
“Emergency interception powers under Regulation 12 allow warrantless surveillance on broad grounds, including ‘national security’ and ‘organized crime,’ without prior legal authorization. Vague national security grounds violate the right to privacy.”
“While SERAP recognizes the government’s responsibility to address national security and organized crime, these objectives must be achieved within constitutional and international human rights constraints. These regulations are unnecessary in a democratic society and are disproportionate.”
There is no definite date for the trial of the lawsuit.
