According to the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), if the nation’s current interception and surveillance laws are not adequately examined by lawmakers, they may be used against citizens and government critics.
In an appearance on Arise Television on Monday, Kolawole Oluwadare, the Deputy Director of SERAP, expressed the issue and urged more openness and public involvement in the creation of such legislation.
According to reports, Oluwadare’s remarks came after claims made by Nasir El-Rufai, the former governor of Kaduna State, that he and another person had overheard a phone call with Nuhu Ribadu, the national security adviser.
Since then, the former governor’s allegations have spurred fresh discussion over the extent and supervision of the monitoring authority given to security organizations.
“Public hearings should be held before regulations are made.”
Oluwadare responded to the controversy by stating that laws with such broad ramifications need to go through a rigorous legislative procedure that includes public hearings.
“This type of regulation should go through the legislative process and public hearing because of its weight and power.” Nigerians will lose important privileges as a result of these rules,” he added.
He contended that the current framework for interception might not be required in its current form, pointing out that issues with ambiguous language, inadequate protections for civil liberties, and the possibility of misuse still exist.
The deputy director of SERAP voiced concerns about the way security agencies use their interception capabilities.
“There are worries that these powers could be used against civilians or government critics because it is unclear how agencies like the DSS or the Office of the National Security Adviser use them,” he said.
He asserts that in order to guarantee that rules of this kind, particularly those that have the potential to affect basic human rights, are balanced between civil freedoms and national security, they must be thoroughly examined by lawmakers.
Oluwadare explained that his stance is in favor of an interception framework that is in line with global best practices rather than completely opposing one.
“This position does not oppose an interception framework in its entirety, but rather recommends that it conform to other jurisdictions’ models, integrating strong protections as envisaged in current legal frameworks,” he clarified.
Public involvement, Oluwadare continued, would improve the efficacy of such legislation in tackling insecurity without compromising democratic freedoms, in addition to bolstering accountability.