A Letter That Reopened an Old Framework
The Lawful Interception Regulations 2019 returned to the centre of Nigeria’s political discourse after the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) formally urged President Bola Tinubu to withdraw the regulations.
In a letter dated February 21, 2026, the group described the framework as “unconstitutional, unlawful and inconsistent with Nigeria’s international obligations,” calling on the President to direct the Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Bosun Tijani, to initiate a transparent legislative review.
The intervention follows allegations by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai that a phone conversation involving the National Security Adviser had been intercepted — claims now before the courts.
Broad Powers, Narrow Safeguards?
SERAP argued that several provisions within the regulations grant overly broad interception powers on grounds such as national security, economic wellbeing and public emergency.
According to the organisation, the framework permits emergency interception and retention of communications for up to three years, while also requiring disclosure of encryption keys in certain circumstances.
Critics contend that such provisions risk weakening privacy protections if not matched with strict judicial authorisation and independent oversight mechanisms.
The regulations were adopted by the Nigerian Communications Commission under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The 2027 Context Changes the Stakes
The debate has intensified as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections.
SERAP warned that surveillance measures lacking clear necessity and proportionality could create a perception of political misuse, particularly during sensitive electoral cycles.
Civil society groups argue that even the perception of indiscriminate monitoring may chill investigative journalism, political organising and public debate.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously stated that indiscriminate mass data collection may fail the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality under international standards.
National Security Versus Civil Liberties
The Federal Government maintains that interception powers are necessary to address terrorism, organised crime and national security threats.
However, rights advocates argue that security objectives must operate within constitutional safeguards, including prior judicial authorisation and accessible remedies for abuse.
At the core of the dispute is the balance between protecting the state and protecting citizens’ private communications.
The Legal Path Ahead
SERAP has given the government seven days to respond to its request, stating that it may initiate legal action if no action is taken.
Meanwhile, the broader constitutional question — how Nigeria defines the limits of lawful interception — is likely to face renewed judicial scrutiny.
Surveillance Debate Moves Into Election Season
As political actors recalibrate ahead of 2027, the controversy surrounding the Lawful Interception Regulations 2019 may shape conversations about transparency, digital rights and institutional trust.
If left unresolved, critics warn that the issue could evolve from a regulatory debate into a credibility test for Nigeria’s democratic safeguards.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
