The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a suit against the federal government at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, questioning the legality of Nigeria’s mass phone-tapping regulations.
Designated ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, the suit was instituted on Friday in Abuja and contests the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations 2019, which SERAP says allows unwarranted surveillance of private communications.
The action followed allegations by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai that a phone conversation involving National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu was intercepted.
SERAP argued that the government’s failure to withdraw the regulations violates Nigeria’s international human rights obligations, particularly the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
In its petition, SERAP is seeking a declaration from the court that the regulations are unlawful, an order directing the government to withdraw them, and instructions to commence a legislative process ensuring that any interception framework aligns with international human rights standards.
The organisation contends that the rules establish a broad surveillance system, potentially allowing authorities to intercept communications on grounds such as national security or economic wellbeing without sufficient judicial oversight.
SERAP warned that the regulations could be misused against journalists, civil society organisations, political opponents, and election observers, especially with Nigeria’s 2027 general elections approaching.
Lawyers representing the organisation, Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke, and Maryam Mumuni, argued that secretive surveillance powers risk abuse and undermine democratic accountability.
They highlighted that the rules expand the list of agencies authorised to intercept communications, including the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and National Drug Law Enforcement Agency.
SERAP also criticised provisions allowing warrantless interception, data retention for up to three years, and compulsory disclosure of encryption keys, asserting that these could compromise privacy and cybersecurity.
While acknowledging the government’s duty to combat national security threats and organised crime, the group stressed that such measures must respect constitutional safeguards and international human rights norms.
No hearing date has yet been set for the case.
