Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas to “immediately reject and withdraw the Nigeria Data Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2026, as the Bill is a backdoor attempt to regulate social media and expand governmental control over online expression, which is incompatible with international human rights standards.” The Bill, sponsored by Senator Ned Nwoko (APC, Delta North), seeks to compel social media platforms, data controllers and data processors operating in Nigeria to establish physical offices in the country, and empowers the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) to shut down or prohibit the operations of any entity that fails to comply within 30 days. In a letter dated 18 July 2026 and signed by SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said: “Requirements compelling technology companies to establish local offices would increase government leverage over platforms, facilitate political pressure, make censorship demands easier and expose local employees to retaliation.” SERAP said: “The Bill would create sweeping powers capable of shutting down or excluding social media platforms from the Nigerian market and expose millions of Nigerians to serious violations of their constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights.” According to SERAP, “The Bill follows earlier attempts by the National Assembly to regulate social media that generated widespread public opposition and serious human rights concerns.” The letter, read in part: “The current Bill revives 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.” “Should the Bill be enacted into law in its current or substantially similar form, SERAP shall promptly take all appropriate legal actions to challenge its legality in the public interest and to ensure that Nigerians’ fundamental rights are fully protected.” “The National Assembly should avoid imposing localization requirements that unnecessarily burden digital services and undermine citizens’ rights.” “The Bill constitutes a backdoor attempt to regulate social media and increase governmental control over online expression through corporate localisation requirements rather than through transparent and constitutionally permissible regulation.” “The Bill also risks recreating the very dangers previously condemned by the ECOWAS Court of Justice. In SERAP and Others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court held that the suspension of Twitter violated the rights to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom protected under the African Charter.” “Although the present Bill differs from the Twitter suspension in form, it creates the possibility of achieving the same result indirectly by empowering regulators to prohibit digital platforms from operating in Nigeria.” “The National Assembly should not enact legislation capable of producing, through indirect regulatory means, the very restrictions on fundamental rights that regional human rights law prohibits.” “Governments have a legitimate interest in ensuring that digital platforms operate responsibly and comply with domestic law. However, such regulation must remain firmly anchored in constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.” “Measures regulating digital services should enhance transparency, accountability and users’ rights—not create additional tools for censorship, surveillance or political interference.” “A law empowering regulators to exclude digital platforms from Nigeria inevitably interferes with the rights of the people who rely upon those platforms. The proposed section 5(p) in the Bill authorises the NDPC to prohibit entities from conducting operations in Nigeria without adequate procedural safeguards.” “The Bill contains no requirement for prior judicial authorisation, no obligation to consider less restrictive alternatives, no meaningful opportunity to remedy alleged non-compliance beyond the arbitrary 30-day period, and no requirement to consider the impact of any prohibition on the fundamental rights of millions of Nigerians.” “In effect, the Bill empowers an administrative agency to impose sanctions comparable to a nationwide restriction on digital communication without the procedural guarantees ordinarily required whenever fundamental rights are at stake.” “The Bill cannot survive scrutiny under Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution, which permits restrictions on fundamental rights only where they are pre
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
