…Warns SB.1034 could undermine rights defenders ahead of 2027 polls

A coalition of Nigerian, African and international civil society organisations has called on the Senate and the Federal Government to immediately withdraw the proposed Foreign Aids (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure) Bill, 2026 (SB.1034), warning that the legislation could restrict civic space and undermine the work of human rights defenders across the country.

The Nigerian Human Rights Defenders Network (NHRDN), Partnership for Justice, Front Line Defenders (FLD), West African Human Rights Defenders Network (WAHRDN) and Protection International made the demand in a joint statement issued yesterday, arguing that the proposed legislation poses serious risks to organisations receiving foreign grants, donations and technical assistance.

The Bill, sponsored by Senator Ibrahim Hassan Dankwambo (PDP, Gombe North), was introduced in May 2026

and passed its second reading in the Senate in July this year. According to the coalition, the Bill seeks to establish a Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission (FARC) with powers to register, inspect, audit, sanction and suspend or shut down organisations receiving foreign grants, donations or technical assistance, including independent civic actors, human rights defenders, legal aid providers and humanitarian organisations.

The organisations said the proposed regulatory regime could have direct consequences for the ability of human rights defenders and civil society groups to provide protection and emergency assistance to vulnerable people.

They argued that SB.1034 contradicts Nigeria’s formally accepted recommendations under its fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) cycle, particularly commitments relating to creating a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders and civil society organisations, as well as protecting freedom of association, assembly and expression.

The coalition also drew attention to Nigeria’s candidature for election to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2027–2029 term, arguing that the country’s bid should be accompanied by concrete domestic measures to protect human rights defenders.

The groups raised specific concerns about several provisions of the proposed legislation.

They said Section 6(1) requires foreign aid to be registered within 30 days of receipt, warning that the requirement could create difficulties for rapid-response humanitarian grants, legal defence funds, emergency relocation support and urgent assistance to survivors of human rights violations and gender-based violence.

According to the coalition, imposing the same registration requirement on such time-sensitive assistance could result in delays to support for human rights defenders facing immediate threats.

The organisations also criticised Sections 7 and 8, which they said require the public disclosure of implementing partners and funded activities through a nationally accessible register.

They argued that such disclosure could create security risks for human rights defenders, survivors, witnesses and people involved in politically sensitive documentation, potentially exposing them to surveillance, harassment and retaliation.

On Section 11, the coalition said the requirement for foreign-funded activities to align with Nigeria’s national development plans and priorities was sufficiently broad and vague to create potential risks for rights-based organisations.

The groups argued that work involving the documentation of rights violations, defence of land and environmental rights, or support for marginalised and at-risk communities could potentially be regarded as being outside government-defined priorities, with implications for the organisations providing such assistance.

The coalition further questioned the need for the proposed FARC, arguing that its functions would substantially duplicate those of existing institutions, including the Corporate Affairs Commission, Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering, Federal Inland Revenue Service and Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit.

The development comes amid broader concerns among civil society groups about the operating environment for civic organisations and other independent actors ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Human rights lawyer and activist, Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, has also criticised the proposed legislation, describing it in a video message monitored by the coalition as potentially one of the most consequential pieces of legislation affecting non-governmental activity since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999.

Odinkalu warned that the proposed framework could have implications beyond conventional civil society organisations, potentially affecting institutions and groups that raise or manage funds from foreign sources.

Separately, a coalition of more than 90 civil society organisations has raised concerns about proposed legislation affecting civic space, including the Foreign Aid Bill and another proposal seeking to require social media platforms to establish physical offices in Nigeria.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Abuja, Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Awwal Musa Rafsanjani, said the pending proposals should be viewed within the broader context of concerns over shrinking civic freedoms.

The groups have argued that the cumulative effect of restrictive measures could encourage self-censorship and weaken the ability of citizens, journalists, civil society organisations and political actors to participate freely in democratic processes ahead of the 2027 elections.

The five organisations behind the latest statement are demanding the immediate withdrawal of SB.1034 and calling for any future legislation affecting civic space and foreign funding to comply with the Nigerian Constitution, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.

They also called for structured and meaningful consultation with human rights defenders and civil society organisations in developing any future regulatory framework.

The coalition wants explicit legal safeguards for confidential information concerning human rights defenders, survivors, witnesses and other at-risk individuals supported through foreign funding, including exemptions from public disclosure where disclosure could endanger their safety.

It further called for a differentiated and expedited procedure for emergency and protection-related funding, including legal defence, medical, psychosocial and relocation assistance for defenders at risk, arguing that such support should not be subjected to the same registration timelines and penalties as standard development funding.

While acknowledging the legitimate need for transparency in the use of foreign funding, the organisations rejected what they described as the use of regulatory mechanisms as instruments of surveillance, censorship and intimidation against human rights defenders.

They reaffirmed their commitment to protecting human rights defenders and safeguarding the civic space in which they operate, urging the National Assembly to withdraw SB.1034 and ensure that any future regulatory framework protects rather than endangers those engaged in human rights work.