The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice over the government’s alleged failure to withdraw “unlawful mass phone-tapping rules” known as the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.
LICR 2019 is a regulation that authorises telecom licensees to install technology for security agencies to monitor communications, including voice, data, text, email, and browsing, for national security and to combat crime.
A statement signed and released on Sunday by SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, said the suit followed allegations by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, was intercepted.
El-Rufai reportedly claimed, “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”
In the suit numbered ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the failure of the government to withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations is unlawful and a violation of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
The organisation is also asking the court to declare that the government’s failure to withdraw the regulations “constitutes an official endorsement of unlawful mass phone-tapping rules, as the Regulations are patently unlawful, and violate the rule of law, democratic principles, and the right to privacy.”
It is further seeking “an order directing and compelling the Nigerian government to immediately withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations, and to commence a legislative process to ensure that any interception regulations are in conformity with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
The suit, filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni, argued that “the Regulations establish a sweeping mass phone-tapping regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights, including to privacy and freedom of expression.”
“Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secrecy and concentrated in political authorities without independent supervision, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial.
“Surveillance measures that lack strict necessity, proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be weaponised against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers,” it added.
SERAP also warned that the regulations raise concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, noting that broad interception powers could be abused during politically sensitive periods.
“In an electoral climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can chill political organising, investigative reporting and voter mobilisation.
“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 2027 approaches, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorisation and backed by effective remedies. Without robust safeguards, these Regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process,” the suit stated.
SERAP maintained that any restriction on the right to privacy must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, arguing that the regulations fail to meet these requirements.
SERAP also cited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as stating that mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary and cannot satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.
The group said the Nigerian government has a duty to adopt clear laws, safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and accessible remedies to prevent abuse by state agencies and private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.
According to SERAP, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) adopted the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 while exercising its powers under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.
The organisation argued that Regulation 4 grants broad discretionary interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with little clarity on the scope or limits of such authority.
SERAP also pointed to inconsistencies within the regulations, noting that while Regulation 4 and Regulation 12 restrict interception powers to the NSA and SSS, Regulation 23 expands the category of authorised agencies to include bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and any other agency the commission may designate.
The organisation said this ambiguity undermines legal certainty and creates the risk of arbitrary application and abuse.
It also criticised provisions allowing interception without a warrant in certain circumstances, arguing that such powers are overly broad and susceptible to misuse.
SERAP further expressed concern that the regulations do not require authorities to notify individuals who have been subjected to surveillance, which it said weakens the ability of citizens to challenge unlawful monitoring.
The organisation warned that requirements compelling telecommunications licensees to install interception equipment and disclose encryption keys could undermine cybersecurity and discourage privacy-enhancing technologies.
SERAP acknowledged the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime but argued that such measures must remain within constitutional and international human rights limits.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
In this article