The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has called on President Bola Tinubu to direct the Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Bosun Tijani, to immediately withdraw the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019, describing them as unconstitutional and a threat to democratic freedoms.
The demand was contained in a letter dated February 21, 2026, and signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.
In the statement released on Sunday, February 22 the organisation said the regulations establish a dangerous framework for mass surveillance that violates the rights of Nigerians.
“The regulations are unconstitutional, unlawful, and entirely inconsistent with Nigeria’s international obligations,” SERAP said.
The call comes against the backdrop of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s recent claim that the phone conversation of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu was intercepted, an admission that has sparked a national debate about surveillance and the rule of law.
El-Rufai had reportedly stated during a television interview: “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”
SERAP argued that the existing regulations give the government sweeping powers to intercept communications without adequate checks and balances.
“The regulations establish a sweeping mass surveillance regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights including to privacy and freedom of expression,” the organisation said.
It warned that the rules 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.”
SERAP raised particular concern about the implications for the 2027 general elections, warning that poorly regulated interception powers could be weaponised against political opponents and civil society.
READ ALSO: NSA’s Phone Tapping: El-Rufai Must Be Probed, Punished — Presidency
“Broad and weakly safeguarded interception powers create a real risk of abuse during politically sensitive periods,” the letter stated.
“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,” it added.
The organisation stressed that free and fair elections depend on the protection of confidential communications.
“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate.
“Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity,” SERAP said.
The group flagged specific provisions in the regulations as problematic, including Regulation 4, which it said gives “broad discretionary interception power with minimal clarity regarding the scope or limits of such discretion,” and Regulation 23, which allows the Nigerian Communications Commission to designate additional authorities with interception powers, creating “ambiguity and undermines legal certainty.”
SERAP also criticised provisions allowing interception without a warrant, the absence of notification to affected individuals, and mandatory disclosure of encryption keys.
The organisation acknowledged the government’s responsibility to address national security concerns but insisted that such objectives must be pursued within legal limits.
“While SERAP acknowledges the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime, such objectives must be pursued within constitutional and international human rights limits. The Regulations are neither necessary in a democratic society nor proportionate,” it said.
SERAP gave the government seven days to respond, warning that failure to act would compel it to pursue “all appropriate legal actions to ensure the government complies with our request in the public interest.”