By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa

The civic space in Nigeria is getting choked day by day through various interferences from both state and non-state actors. The protection and enforcement of civil rights and obligations has become endangered in the social milieu of very undemocratic practices. Some even say it has gotten to such a stage of comparing our current experiences with the military era, which we claimed was a product of dictatorship.

Though opinions differ on this, but we should not get to a period when there is even the slightest comparison between civilian rule and military junta, as that would mean a huge loss from the struggles of our heroes past and all that we have gained from our past experiences. In the past, citizens were free to engage the government on burning national issues with the aim of achieving good governance, without the fear of per

The various laws being proposed to regulate the media smacks of intolerance of principled opposition, which from whatever angle it is viewed, is dangerous for democracy. A few weeks ago, activists, civil society and non-governmental organisations gathered in Abuja to brainstorm on the mode of intervention to rescue our fragile civilian government from its apparent phobia. Please permit me to share with you the details of an abridged version of the press statement released by what can best be described as a gathering of the faithful.

The press statement
We, the undersigned Nigerian, African and international human rights organisations and civil society organisations, are gravely concerned by the growing number of restrictive and repressive bills currently before Nigeria’s National Assembly. If enacted, these bills would significantly expand executive control over civic life and further undermine the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, media freedom, access to information, democratic participation and the rule of law. These legislative proposals are being considered at a time when civic space in Nigeria is experiencing one of its most serious periods of decline since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999. Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, the authorities have increasingly relied on restrictive laws, politically motivated prosecutions, strategic lawsuits, arbitrary arrests, intimidation and judicial harassment against journalists, bloggers, media organisations, human rights defenders, civil society organisations and other individuals peacefully exercising their constitutional rights.
Examples of intolerance

Recent examples include the continuing prosecution of activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore, the misuse of the Cybercrimes Act to target journalists and government critics, and repeated attempts to intimidate independent media and civil society organisations.

International monitoring has also documented this deterioration. In May 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported 91 cases of journalists being arrested, attacked or otherwise harassed across 13 states and the Federal Capital Territory during the first three years of the current administration. In the context of the broader pattern of repression and authoritarian practices in Nigeria, the pending bills are not isolated legislative initiatives.

Rather, they represent an increasingly coordinated legislative effort to expand executive control over civil society, independent media and digital spaces while curtailing civic participation, public scrutiny and democratic accountability.

The timing of these proposals is particularly concerning as Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections. Rather than creating an open environment where citizens, journalists, civil society organisations and political actors can participate freely, these measures risk entrenching fear, self-censorship and intolerance of dissent. Independent advocacy, investigative journalism and public scrutiny are not threats to democracy; they are essential safeguards of constitutional governance and accountability. Nigeria has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment before the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the United Nations and other international bodies to uphold democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The National Assembly therefore has a constitutional and international legal responsibility to strengthen—not weaken—the protections that safeguard civic space and democratic governance.

We are particularly alarmed by the Foreign Aids (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure) Bill, 2026 (SB.1034), which would confer sweeping powers on the authorities to monitor, regulate, sanction, suspend and potentially shut down non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations and private entities receiving foreign assistance under the guise of promoting transparency, accountability and the prevention of the misuse of foreign aid.

Clause by clause review of the proposed bills
While Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill identify legitimate objectives, including transparency, accountability and preventing misuse of foreign aid, they establish an overly broad regulatory framework that fails to distinguish between public funds received by government institutions and private philanthropic resources received by independent organisations.

This risks transforming public financial regulation into state control over the constitutionally protected activities of independent associations. Sections 3–5 establish the Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission (FARC) with extensive powers to register recipients, demand information, conduct inspections and audits, impose sanctions and enforce compliance with undefined “national policies and priorities”. These powers duplicate functions already performed by existing institutions, including the Corporate Affairs Commission, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML), while creating a new regulator with broad discretionary authority. The Bill fails to demonstrate that these existing legal and institutional frameworks are inadequate or incapable of achieving its stated objectives.

Sections 6–8 require every recipient of foreign assistance to register with FARC within 30 days, criminalise non-registration, impose extensive disclosure requirements through a National Foreign Aid Register, and require detailed reporting obligations regardless of the nature, size or risk profile of the funding.

Sections 9–11 impose further controls by requiring annual audits and compelling foreign-funded projects—including those undertaken by independent civil society organisations—to align with government-defined national development priorities. This creates significant risks of executive interference in legitimate human rights, governance, anti-corruption, public interest litigation and accountability work.

Sections 12–16 impose severe criminal and administrative sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, suspension or revocation of operational licences, broad regulation-making powers for the Commission, and an extremely broad definition of “foreign aid” capable of capturing virtually all forms of international financial and technical assistance. These provisions establish a sweeping, duplicative and disproportionate framework that threatens civil society independence, discourages legitimate international cooperation and humanitarian assistance, and interferes with constitutionally protected rights.

Censorship of social media platforms
We are equally concerned by legislative proposals seeking to compel social media platforms to establish physical offices in  Nigeria or face prohibition from operating in the country. Although presented as regulatory measures, such proposals would substantially increase governmental leverage over digital platforms that facilitate public debate, access to information and civic participation.

To be continued tomorrow.

Adegboruwa, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).