JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against President Bola Tinubu’s government for “failure to revoke the patently illegal mass wiretapping regulations known as the ‘Legitimate Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.'”
The lawsuit followed allegations by former Kaduna state governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that the telephone conversation of National Security Advisor (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, had been intercepted. El-Rufai reportedly said: “The NSA call was intercepted. They also do the same with our calls and we heard him say that they should arrest me.”
In case number ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26 filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, Abuja, SERAP seeks: “a declaration that the government’s failure to withdraw the rules on the interception of communications is unlawful and constitutes a breach of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the government’s failure to withdraw the rules on interception of communications constitutes an official endorsement of the illegal rules on mass wiretapping, as the rules are patently illegal and violate 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 withdraw the communications interception regulations and initiate a legislative process to ensure that all interception regulations comply with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
In the lawsuit, SERAP argues that “the Regulations establish a vast regime of mass wiretapping that violates the constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights of Nigerians, including privacy and freedom of expression.”
SERAP further argues that: “Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secret and concentrated in political authorities without independent oversight, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial.”
According to SERAP, “surveillance measures that lack strict necessity, proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be used as weapons against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers.”
SERAP further argues that “the regulations also raise serious concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections. Broad and poorly safeguarded wiretapping powers create a real risk of abuse during politically sensitive periods.”
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 bulk data collection create an ongoing risk of misuse, profiling and abuse, particularly given the formidable technologies available to state authorities.”
“The mere retention or storage of personal data relating to an individual’s private life constitutes an interference with this right, regardless of whether the data is subsequently accessed or used.”
“In an electoral climate, the perception that private communications are monitored can also chill political organizing, investigative journalism, and voter mobilization.”
“The Regulations grant overly broad and vague powers to intercept communications on grounds such as ‘national security’, ‘economic welfare’ and ‘public emergency’, without adequate judicial safeguards, independent oversight, transparency or effective remedies.”
“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate. Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.”
“As we approach 2027, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorization and supported by effective remedies. Without robust safeguards, these regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process.”
“Any restriction on the right to privacy must strictly comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Regulation fails all three tests.”
“The Regulations normalize surveillance as a routine state practice and reverse the presumption of privacy by criminalizing interception except as permitted by the Regulations.”
“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has made it unequivocally clear: mass surveillance programs based on the indiscriminate and widespread collection of personal data are inherently arbitrary and will never satisfy 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 remedies to prevent abuses. These duties extend not only to state agencies but also to private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.”
“The Nigerian Communications Commission (the Commission), while purportedly exercising its powers under section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, has adopted the ‘Lawful Interception of Communications, 2019 (The Regulations).”
“Under Regulation 4, broad discretionary interception powers are granted to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with minimal clarity as to the scope or limits of such discretion.”
“The provision also extends to communications within and outside Nigeria and grants blanket immunity to licensees acting ‘in good faith’. Such broad and vaguely defined powers create significant risks of abuse, including political abuse.”
“Inconsistencies in the regulations create serious legal concerns. Regulation 4(1) limits interception powers to the National Security Adviser (NSA) and the State Security Services (SSS), and Regulation 12(1) reiterates this restriction.”
“However, Regulation 23 on “Interpretation” expands the category of “authorized agencies” to include additional bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and such other agencies as the Commission may designate.”
“This creates ambiguity and undermines legal certainty. Nigerians cannot reasonably know which authorities have the power to intercept their communications, making regulations unpredictable and subject to arbitrary enforcement and abuse.”
No date has been set for the hearing in the case.
Post views:
94
