The line between security and privacy
In every modern state, the power to intercept private communication exists. It is not unusual. What matters is how it is controlled.
In Nigeria, that line is drawn first by the Constitution.
Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the privacy of citizens’ correspondence and telephone conversations. That guarantee is not symbolic. It establishes a presumption of privacy.
Interception, therefore, is an exception — not the default.
Who can legally authorise interception
Under Section 146 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, no person may intentionally intercept a message transmitted through a public communications network unless authorised by lawful direction.
Typically, such direction requires:
- A court order
- Defined scope and duration
- Specific investigative justification
The Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations 2019 further restrict execution to designated law enforcement and security agencies.
Private actors do not possess lawful authority.
The role of intelligence agencies
Nigeria’s intelligence framework includes agencies such as the DSS, NIA and military intelligence structures. These agencies operate within classified protocols, but their interception capabilities remain legally tethered.
Even within security institutions, interception is not casual. It is documented, justified and supervised.
Operational secrecy does not remove legal obligation.
Technology exists, access is restricted
Modern interception tools are highly sophisticated and typically available only to governments or licensed intelligence-support entities.
However, possession of capability does not equal legal authorisation.
The critical question in any allegation involving interception is not whether it is technically possible — but whether it was legally sanctioned.
Oversight mechanisms and safeguards
Judicial oversight is the primary safeguard. Requests for interception must be presented before a competent court.
Additionally, internal compliance structures exist within security agencies to prevent operational abuse.
Evidence obtained through unlawful interception risks being ruled inadmissible under the Evidence Act.
This creates both legal and procedural deterrence.
Why the framework matters
In democratic systems, interception powers are justified by national security necessity. But the legitimacy of those powers depends on restraint.
If citizens believe surveillance operates without boundary, trust erodes.
If security agencies are unable to act lawfully when required, safety erodes.
The equilibrium between privacy and protection is delicate.
That balance is maintained not by capability — but by adherence to process.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.