SERAP gives Tinubu seven-day ultimatum to withdraw Surveillance Regulations

By Kazeem Ugbodaga

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has demanded the immediate withdrawal of the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019, warning that the framework creates a sweeping mass surveillance regime capable of undermining privacy rights and Nigeria’s democratic process ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a letter dated 21 February 2026 and signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, SERAP urged President Bola Tinubu to “direct Mr Bosun Tijani, Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy to immediately withdraw the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019, as the Regulations are unconstitutional, unlawful, and entirely inconsistent with Nigeria’s international obligations.”

The organisation also asked the President “to urgently initiate a transparent and inclusive legislative process to ensure that any lawful interception framework fully complies with constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight requirements, and Nigeria’s international obligations.”

The demand follows allegations by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who claimed that the National Security Adviser’s conversation had been intercepted.

El-Rufai reportedly stated: “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”

Although the allegation has sparked controversy, SERAP’s intervention broadens the debate beyond personalities to the legality of the interception framework itself.

In the letter, the group argued that “the Regulations establish a sweeping mass surveillance regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights including to privacy and freedom of expression.”

SERAP maintained that “the Regulations grant overly broad and vague powers to intercept communications on grounds such as ‘national security,’ ‘economic wellbeing,’ and ‘public emergency,’ without adequate judicial safeguards, independent oversight, transparency, or effective remedies.”

It warned that “serious interferences with fundamental rights cannot be authorised through subsidiary regulations or exercised in secrecy without strict safeguards.”

Raising alarm over the political implications as 2027 approaches, SERAP stated: “The Regulations also raise serious concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections. Broad and weakly safeguarded interception powers create a real risk of abuse during politically sensitive periods.”

The group cautioned that “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.”

“In an electoral climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can chill political organising, investigative reporting and voter mobilisation,” the letter read.

SERAP stressed that “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.”

The organisation insisted that “any restriction on the right to privacy must strictly comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Regulations fail all three tests.”

It further argued that “the Regulations normalise surveillance as routine state practice and invert the presumption of privacy by criminalising interception except as permitted under the Regulations.”

SERAP gave the government a seven-day ultimatum, stating: “We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within 7 days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel your government to comply with our request in the public interest.”

Citing international standards, the group noted: “The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has made it unequivocally clear: mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary per se and can never satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.”

It added: “The mere retention or storage of personal data relating to an individual’s private life constitutes an interference with this right—whether or not the data is subsequently accessed or used.”

SERAP also raised concerns about regulatory inconsistencies. It argued that while Regulation 4 limits interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, 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 and National Drug Law Enforcement Agency.

“This creates ambiguity and undermines legal certainty. Nigerians cannot reasonably know which authorities are empowered to intercept their communications, making the Regulations unpredictable and prone to arbitrary application and abuse,” the organisation said.

The group warned that “such regulatory ambiguity threatens the rule of law, weakens accountability mechanisms, and increases the risk of abuse, particularly in politically sensitive contexts or during elections.”

While acknowledging the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime, SERAP said that “such objectives must be pursued within constitutional and international human rights limits. The Regulations are neither necessary in a democratic society nor proportionate.”