By
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
INTRODUCTION
The civic space in Nigeria is getting choked day by day through various interferences from both state and non-state actors. The protection and enforcement of civil rights and obligations has become endangered in the social milieu of very undemocratic practices. Some even say it has gotten to such
a stage of comparing our current experiences with the military era, which we claimed was a product of dictatorship. Though opinions differ on this, but we should not get to a period when there is even the slightest comparison between civilian rule and military junta, as that would mean a huge loss from the struggles of our heroes past and all that we have gained from our past experiences. In the past, citizens were free to engage the government on burning national issues with the
aim of achieving good governance, without the fear of persecution, censorship or collateral liability. The various laws being proposed to regulate the media smacks of intolerance of principled opposition, which from whatever angle it is viewed, is dangerous for democracy.
A few weeks ago, activists, civil society and non-governmental organisations gathered together in Abuja to brainstorm on the mode of intervention to rescue our fragile civilian government from its apparent phobia. Please permit me to share with you the details of an abridged version of the press statement released by what can best be described as a gathering of the faithful.
THE PRESS STATEMENT
We, the undersigned Nigerian, African and international human rights organisations and civil society organisations, are gravely concerned by the growing number of restrictive and repressive bills currently before Nigeria’s National Assembly. If enacted, these bills would significantly expand executive control over civic life and further undermine the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, media freedom, access to
information, democratic participation and the rule of law. These legislative proposals are being considered at a time when civic space in Nigeria is experiencing one of its most serious periods of decline since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999. Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, the authorities have increasingly relied on restrictive laws, politically motivated prosecutions, strategic lawsuits, arbitrary arrests, intimidation and judicial harassment against journalists,
bloggers, media organisations, human rights defenders, civil society organisations and other individuals peacefully exercising their constitutional rights.
EXAMPLES OF INTOLERANCE
Recent examples include the continuing prosecution of activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore, the misuse of the
Cybercrimes Act to target journalists and government critics, and repeated attempts to intimidate independent media and civil society organisations. International monitoring has also documented this deterioration. In May 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported 91 cases of journalists being arrested, attacked or otherwise harassed across 13 states and the Federal Capital Territory during the first three years of the current administration. In the context of the broader pattern of repression and authoritarian practices in Nigeria, the pending bills are not isolated
legislative initiatives. Rather, they represent an increasingly coordinated legislative effort to expand executive control over civil society, independent media and digital spaces while curtailing civic participation, public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
The timing of these proposals is particularly concerning as Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections. Rather than creating an
open environment where citizens, journalists, civil society organisations and political actors can participate freely, these measures risk entrenching fear, self-censorship and intolerance of dissent. Independent advocacy, investigative journalism and public scrutiny are not threats to democracy; they are essential safeguards of constitutional governance and accountability. Nigeria has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment before the
African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the United Nations and other international bodies to uphold democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The National Assembly therefore has a constitutional and international legal responsibility to strengthen—not weaken—the protections that safeguard civic space and democratic governance.
We are particularly alarmed by the Foreign
Aids (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure) Bill, 2026 (SB.1034), which would confer sweeping powers on the authorities to monitor, regulate, sanction, suspend and potentially shut down non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations and private entities receiving foreign assistance under the guise of promoting transparency, accountability and the prevention of the misuse of foreign aid.
CLAUSE BY CLAUSE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED BILLS
While Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill identify legitimate objectives, including transparency, accountability and preventing misuse of foreign aid, they establish an overly broad regulatory framework that fails to distinguish between public funds received by government institutions and private philanthropic resources received by
independent organisations. This risks transforming public financial regulation into state control over the constitutionally protected activities of independent associations. Sections 3–5 establish the Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission (FARC) with extensive powers to register recipients, demand information, conduct inspections and audits, impose sanctions and enforce compliance with undefined “national policies and priorities”. These powers duplicate functions already performed by existing institutions, including the Corporate
Affairs Commission, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML), while creating a new regulator with broad discretionary authority. The Bill fails to demonstrate that these existing legal and institutional frameworks are inadequate or incapable of achieving its stated objectives.
Sections 6–8 require every recipient of
foreign assistance to register with FARC within 30 days, criminalise non-registration, impose extensive disclosure requirements through a National Foreign Aid Register, and require detailed reporting obligations regardless of the nature, size or risk profile of the funding.
Sections 9–11 impose further controls by requiring annual audits and compelling foreign-funded projects—including those undertaken by independent civil society organisations—to align with government-defined national development priorities. This creates significant risks of executive interference in legitimate human rights, governance, anti-corruption, public interest litigation and accountability work.
Sections 12–16 impose severe criminal and administrative sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, suspension or revocation of operational licences, broad regulation-making powers for the Commission, and an extremely broad definition of “foreign aid” capable of capturing virtually all forms of international financial and technical assistance. These provisions establish a sweeping, duplicative and disproportionate framework that threatens civil society independence, discourages legitimate international cooperation and humanitarian assistance, and interferes with constitutionally protected rights.
CENSORSHIP OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
We are equally concerned by legislative proposals seeking to compel social media platforms to establish physical offices in Nigeria or face prohibition from operating in the country. Although presented as regulatory measures, such proposals would substantially increase governmental leverage over digital platforms that facilitate
public debate, access to information and civic participation. Conditioning access to Nigeria’s digital market on physical establishment, backed by the threat of prohibition, is neither necessary nor proportionate to any legitimate regulatory objective. Such measures risk facilitating censorship, restricting access to information, discouraging innovation and investment, and encouraging private companies to prioritise political pressure over internationally recognised human rights standards. Both the Foreign Aids (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure)
Bill and the proposed legislation requiring social media platforms to establish physical offices in Nigeria are incompatible with Nigeria’s constitutional, regional and international human rights obligations. Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) guarantee freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, while Section 22 recognises the vital role of the media in holding government accountable.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS AND INSTRUMENTS
Nigeria is also bound by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which forms part of Nigerian law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. Article 1 requires Nigeria to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights protected under the Charter, including freedom of expression (Article 9), freedom of association (Article 10), freedom of assembly (Article 11) and participation in public affairs (Article 13). Nigeria is further bound by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association and participation in public affairs, while Article 2 requires Nigeria to ensure that domestic laws give full effect to these rights. Under Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Nigeria must ensure that its domestic legal framework remains consistent with its treaty obligations.
Any restriction on these rights must satisfy the requirements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality under Articles 19(3), 21 and 22(2) of the ICCPR. The proposed bills fail to meet these standards. The Foreign Aids Bill is also inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Article 13 recognises the right of everyone, individually and in association with others, to solicit, receive and utilise resources for the peaceful promotion and protection of human rights. Article 3 requires that any regulation of such activities be consistent with the UN Charter and international human rights obligations. The Bill further conflicts with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, which require States to facilitate rather than control the work of associations. It is also inconsistent with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation 8, which requires measures affecting non-profit organisations to be targeted, risk-based and proportionate and rejects blanket regulatory approaches.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Regional and international courts have consistently rejected disproportionate restrictions of this nature. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has affirmed that limitations on Charter rights must satisfy strict requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and must not
destroy the essence of the protected right. Similarly, in Commission v Hungary (Transparency of Associations) (Case C-78/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that transparency objectives cannot justify discriminatory or disproportionate restrictions on organisations receiving international support or create a climate of suspicion towards independent civil society.
International cooperation is essential to the work of many Nigerian civil society organisations. International support enables organisations to undertake human rights monitoring, anti-corruption advocacy, humanitarian assistance, legal aid, election observation, public interest litigation and other activities that strengthen constitutional governance. Such support is a legitimate form of international cooperation, not evidence of foreign interference.
THE RESOLUTIONS
We therefore call upon the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the leadership of both chambers and all members of the National Assembly to:
1.Immediately withdraw the Foreign Aids (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure) Bill, 2026 (SB.1034), the Bill requiring social media platforms to establish physical offices in Nigeria, and all other pending bills that unjustifiably restrict civic space, the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, media freedom, access to information and democratic participation.
2.Ensure that all future legislation affecting civil society organisations, digital rights, media freedom or civic participation complies fully with the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other applicable international human rights standards.
3.Conduct genuine, transparent and meaningful consultations with civil society organisations, journalists, human rights defenders, professional associations, digital rights organisations, development partners and other affected stakeholders before adopting reforms affecting civic freedoms.
4.Reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to constitutionalism, accountability, transparency, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The National Assembly now faces a defining constitutional choice. It can enact legislation that expands executive control, shrinks civic space and accelerates democratic decline, or it can uphold the Nigerian Constitution, honour Nigeria’s binding regional and international human rights obligations, and reaffirm the country’s commitment to democratic governance, accountability and the rule of law.
We urge the
National Assembly to reject these repressive bills in their entirety and instead enact legislation that protect civic space, strengthen transparency and accountability, promote meaningful public participation, and reinforce the constitutional and democratic values on which Nigeria’s future depends.
In this article