The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu over what it described as the government’s failure to withdraw the controversial Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019, which the group claims enable unlawful mass surveillance of Nigerians.
The suit, filed at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, followed allegations by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who recently claimed that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, had been intercepted.
El-Rufai reportedly alleged that security agencies were also tapping the calls of other political figures. “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me,” he was quoted as saying.
In the suit marked ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, filed last Friday, SERAP is asking the regional court to declare the Nigerian government’s failure to withdraw the interception regulations as unlawful and inconsistent with the country’s international human rights obligations.
The organisation is specifically seeking a declaration that retaining the regulations amounts to “an official endorsement of unlawful mass phone-tapping rules,” which it says violate the rule of law, democratic principles, and the fundamental right to privacy.
SERAP is also asking the court to compel the Nigerian government to immediately withdraw the regulations and begin a legislative process to ensure that any future communications interception framework aligns with international human rights standards.
According to SERAP, the regulations create a sweeping surveillance regime that infringes on Nigerians’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
READ ALSO: SERAP calls on Tinubu to scrap regulations permitting phone surveillance of Nigerians
The group argued in its court filings that concentrating surveillance powers within political authorities without independent oversight increases the risk of arbitrary use.
“Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secrecy and concentrated in political authorities without independent supervision, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial,” the organisation stated.
SERAP warned that surveillance tools lacking strict necessity, proportionality, and independent judicial oversight could easily be weaponised against political opponents, journalists, civil society organisations, and election observers.
The organisation also raised concerns about the implications of the regulations as Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections, noting that broad interception powers could be abused during politically sensitive periods.
It warned that the perception that private communications are being monitored could discourage political organising, investigative journalism, and voter mobilisation.
“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate,” SERAP said, adding that any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation or political advantage could undermine electoral integrity.
The case was filed on behalf of SERAP by its legal team, including Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke, and Maryam Mumuni.
In the suit, the lawyers argued that secret surveillance and bulk data collection create a permanent risk of misuse, profiling, and abuse, particularly given the sophisticated technologies available to state authorities.
They also noted that the mere storage of personal data relating to an individual’s private life constitutes an interference with the right to privacy, regardless of whether the data is eventually used.
SERAP further challenged provisions within the regulations adopted by the Nigerian Communications Commission under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.
The group said Regulation 4 grants broad discretionary powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Service to intercept communications with minimal clarity regarding the scope and limits of such powers.
It also pointed out that Regulation 23 expands the list of “authorised agencies” beyond those initially specified to include bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, as well as any other agency the commission may designate.
According to SERAP, this expansion creates legal ambiguity and undermines certainty regarding which authorities can intercept private communications.
The organisation further criticised provisions allowing interception without warrants in certain circumstances, including situations involving consent, threats to life, or activities conducted in the “ordinary course of business.”
SERAP argued that such provisions are overly broad and vulnerable to abuse, especially since individuals subjected to surveillance are not required to be notified.
The group insisted that any restriction on privacy rights must meet the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
“Without robust safeguards, these regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process,” the suit stated.
SERAP maintained that while the government has a duty to combat national security threats and organised crime, such efforts must be pursued within constitutional and international human rights limits.