Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged President Bola Tinubu to direct the Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Mr Bosun Tijani, to immediately withdraw the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.

The body lamented that the regulations are unconstitutional, unlawful, and entirely inconsistent with Nigeria’s international obligations.

SERAP also urged him 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 request followed claims by the former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir el-Rufai, that the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu’s phone conversation was intercepted.

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

In the letter at the weekend, signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said the regulations establish a sweeping mass surveillance regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression.

SERAP stated 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.

According to the body, serious interferences with fundamental rights cannot be authorised through subsidiary regulations or exercised in secrecy without strict safeguards.

“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.

“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,” SERAP stated.

The organisation maintained that free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate, saying: “Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.”

As 2027 approaches, SERAP advises that interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorisation and backed by effective remedies, warning that without robust safeguards, the regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process.

“Any restriction on the right to privacy must strictly comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The regulations fail all three tests.

“The regulations normalise surveillance as routine state practice and invert the presumption of privacy by criminalising interception except as permitted under the regulations,” SERAP said.

It noted that 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.

The body recalled that the Nigerian Communications Commission (the Commission), while purportedly exercising its powers under section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, adopted the ‘Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 (The Regulations).

Citing Regulation 4, SERAP said broad discretionary interception powers were granted to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with minimal clarity regarding the scope or limits of such discretion.