SERAP Gives NASS Ultimatum to Withdraw Controversial Social Media Bill

SERAP urges Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas to reject and withdraw Nigeria Data Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2026 SERAP said the Bill is a backdoor attempt to regulate social media, and expand government control over online expression, and is inconsistent with international human rights standards.

Senator Ned Nwoko (APC, Delta North) sponsored a bill to mandate social media platforms, data controllers and data processors operating in Nigeria to have physical offices in Nigeria, as well as empower the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) to shut down or ban the operations of any entity that fails to comply within 30 days.

In a letter dated July 18, 2026 and signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said: “Requirements that force technology companies to set up local offices would increase government leverage over platforms, facilitate political pressure, make censorship demands easier and expose local employees to retaliation.”
“The Bill would give sweeping powers to shut down or exclude social media platforms from the Nigerian market and expose millions of Nigerians to serious violations of their constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights.

The Bill follows previous attempts by the National Assembly to regulate social media which attracted widespread public opposition and serious human rights concerns.

The letter, in part, said: “The current Bill resurrects substantially similar proposals previously introduced by Senator Nwoko, raising renewed concerns that localisation requirements are being used as a vehicle for expanding governmental control over digital platforms and online expression.

“Whereas, if the Bill is enacted into law in its present or substantially similar form, SERAP shall without delay bring legal actions challenging the legality of the Bill in the public interest and to ensure the full protection of the fundamental rights of Nigerians.

“The National Assembly should not impose localization requirements that place an undue burden on digital services and infringe on citizens’ rights.

“The Bill is a backdoor attack on social media and increased government control over online expression through corporate localisation requirements, not transparent and constitutionally permissible regulation.

“The Bill also runs the risk of recreating the very dangers that the ECOWAS Court of Justice had earlier condemned. In SERAP and Others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court found that the suspension of Twitter violated the rights to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom under the African Charter.

“The present Bill is not the Twitter suspension, but it creates the possibility of that effect by proxy, by giving regulators the power to ban digital platforms from operating in Nigeria.

The National Assembly shall not pass laws which may, through indirect regulation, lead to limitations on fundamental rights prohibited by regional human rights law.

“There is a legitimate interest on the part of governments to ensure that digital platforms are being run responsibly and in accordance with domestic law. Any such regulation must be firmly grounded in constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.

“Regulation of digital services should be about promoting transparency, accountability and users’ rights, not new ways for censorship, surveillance or political interference.

“Any law that gives regulators the power to ban digital platforms in Nigeria is likely to violate the rights of the people who rely on those platforms. The new section 5(p) of the Bill empowers the NDPC to prevent entities from carrying out operations in Nigeria without adequate procedural safeguards.

“The Bill does not require prior judicial authorization, does not require consideration of less restrictive alternatives, does not provide for a meaningful opportunity to remedy alleged non-compliance outside the arbitrary 30-day period, and does not require consideration of the impact of any prohibition on the fundamental rights of millions of Nigerians.

In effect, the Bill gives an administrative agency the power to impose sanctions that are the equivalent of a nationwide shutdown of digital communications, without the procedural protections that are normally required whenever fundamental rights are implicated.

“The Bill cannot pass the test of Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution which states that restrictions on fundamental rights can only be imposed when they are prescribed by law, for a legitimate purpose and are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

“While increased regulatory compliance may be a legitimate governmental objective, the proposed amendment fails entirely the tests of necessity and proportionality in constitutional and international human rights law.

There is no evidence that the powers under the Nigeria Data Protection Act are not sufficient, that the existing enforcement mechanisms have failed or that less intrusive options would not suffice.

“The Bill is proposing one of the toughest sanctions possible, banning digital platforms from Nigeria for just not having a physical office.

The National Assembly has no constitutional mandate to do directly what it is now trying to do indirectly through regulatory localization requirements. For millions of Nigerians, the practical effect would be no different from a ban on the platform.

Read Also: Peter Obi Has What It Takes to Fix Nigeria’s Security, Economy – NDC Chieftain

The Bill is clearly inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution and Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and must be rejected and withdrawn by the National Assembly with urgency.

The Bill would damage the country’s digital economy, innovation ecosystem and international standing. The Bill seeks to amend the Nigeria Data Protection Act to strengthen regulatory compliance and consumer protection. But the Bill has far-reaching practical implications.

The Bill provides a statutory framework for the exclusion of digital platforms from Nigeria, requiring social media companies to establish a physical office in Nigeria in order to operate and empowering the NDPC to prohibit their operations after just 30 days of non-compliance.

“The amendment under discussion threatens far more than the interests of technology companies. This has direct implications on the rights of millions of Nigerians who depend on digital platforms to enjoy their rights to freedom of expression, to receive and impart information, to associate with others, to participate in political life, to do business and to pursue education and to engage in civic advocacy.

The rights to freedom of expression, digital rights and access to information are provided for under Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly stated that restrictions on freedom of expression must always meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and that governments should resort to the least restrictive means to achieve legitimate public objectives.

The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights calls upon States to improve universal access to the Internet, to refrain from unduly restricting digital communication and to protect online intermediaries from unwarranted interference.

David Kaye, the former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, has cautioned governments against demanding that tech companies open local offices in an effort to facilitate censorship or allow indirect government influence over content moderation decisions.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has warned against extensive intermediary duties imposed on States which encourage private censorship or allow governments to exert undue pressure on online platforms.

The Special Rapporteur has also seen that governments should not contract out the responsibility to regulate lawful expression to private companies in ways that increase governmental leverage over digital platforms.

“The proposed amendment is in direct contradiction with the objectives of the Nigeria Startup Act 2022 and the National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy.

“Mandatory localisation requirements significantly increase compliance costs, especially for start-ups, open-source projects, educational institutions, research organisations, AI developers and smaller technology companies, while making Nigeria less attractive as a destination for innovation and investment.

“There is no major democratic jurisdiction that requires, as a blanket precondition, that all social media platforms must have an office in order for them to be able to provide services.

We call on the National Assembly to withdraw the Bill forthwith as an opportunity to reassert its commitment to constitutional democracy, the rule of law and Nigeria’s digital future.