The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has instituted a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, challenging the government’s alleged refusal to withdraw what it described as “unlawful mass phone-tapping rules” contained in the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.
The Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 authorise telecommunications licensees to deploy technology that enables security agencies to monitor various forms of communication, including voice calls, data, text messages, emails and browsing activities, for the purposes of national security and crime prevention.
In a statement issued on Sunday and signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said the lawsuit was prompted by allegations made by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who claimed that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, had been 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.”
The suit, marked ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, was filed last Friday before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja. SERAP is asking the court for “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 group is also seeking a declaration that the government’s refusal 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.”
In addition, the organisation is requesting “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 was filed on behalf of SERAP by its legal team comprising Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni. They 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 further warned that the regulations could raise serious concerns as Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, noting that the broad interception powers could potentially be misused 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.
The organisation maintained that any limitation on the right to privacy must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, stressing that the current regulations do not meet these standards.
SERAP also cited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which stated that mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary and fail to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality.
According to the organisation, the Nigerian government is obligated to enact clear laws, establish safeguards and independent oversight mechanisms, and provide accessible remedies to prevent abuse by state agencies and private entities, including telecommunications operators and technology companies.
SERAP noted that the Nigerian Communications Commission 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 extensive discretionary interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with limited clarity regarding the scope or boundaries of such authority.
It also highlighted inconsistencies within the regulations, explaining that while Regulation 4 and Regulation 12 limit interception powers to the NSA and the SSS, Regulation 23 broadens the list of authorised agencies to include the Nigeria Police Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and any other agency the commission may designate.
SERAP said the ambiguity in the regulations undermines legal certainty and increases the possibility of arbitrary enforcement and abuse.
The organisation also criticised provisions that permit interception without a warrant under certain conditions, describing such powers as overly broad and vulnerable to misuse.
It further expressed concern that the regulations do not require authorities to notify individuals who have been subjected to surveillance, arguing that this weakens citizens’ ability to challenge unlawful monitoring.
SERAP warned that provisions compelling telecommunications licensees to install interception equipment and disclose encryption keys could weaken cybersecurity and discourage the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies.
While acknowledging the government’s responsibility to tackle national security threats and organised crime, the organisation insisted that such actions must comply with constitutional provisions and international human rights standards.
No date has yet been fixed for the hearing of the case.
