SERAP urges Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the 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 incompatible with international human rights standards.
A bill sponsored by Senator Ned Nwoko (APC, Delta North) aims to make social media platforms, data controllers and data processors that operate in Nigeria establish physical offices in the country and gives the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) the power to shut down or ban 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.”
“The Bill would grant 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 is following earlier attempts by the National Assembly to regulate social media that attracted widespread public opposition and serious human rights concerns.”
In part, the letter read: “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 passed into law in its present or substantially similar form, SERAP shall without delay take appropriate legal actions to challenge 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 avoid localization requirements that unduly burden digital services and undermine citizens’ rights.
“The Bill is a backdoor attack on social media and increased government control over online expression through corporate localisation requirements, rather than transparent and constitutionally permissible regulation.
“The Bill also runs the risk of re-creating the very dangers that the ECOWAS Court of Justice previously decried. In SERAP and Others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court found that the suspension of Twitter was a violation of the rights to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom guaranteed under the African Charter.
“While the current Bill is not the Twitter suspension, it creates the avenue for that effect by proxy, by giving regulators the power to ban digital platforms from operating in Nigeria.
“The National Assembly shall not adopt laws which, by indirect means of regulation, may result in restrictions on fundamental rights prohibited by regional human rights law.
Governments have a legitimate interest in ensuring that digital platforms are operated responsibly and in accordance with domestic law. But such regulation must be firmly rooted in constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.
“Digital service regulation should increase transparency, accountability and users’ rights – not provide new tools for censorship, surveillance or political interference.
“Any law that empowers regulators to ban digital platforms in Nigeria is likely to infringe on the rights of the people who rely on those platforms. The Bill’s new section 5(p) empowers the NDPC to prevent entities from carrying out operations in Nigeria without sufficient procedural safeguards.
“The Bill does not require prior judicial authorisation, 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 grants an administrative agency the ability to impose sanctions comparable to a nationwide ban on digital communication without the procedural protections that are usually warranted whenever fundamental rights are at stake.
“The Bill cannot survive the test of Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution which says that restrictions on fundamental rights can only be imposed when they are prescribed by law, are for a legitimate purpose and are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
“While improving regulatory compliance might be a legitimate governmental objective, the proposed amendment totally fails the constitutional and international human rights law tests of necessity and proportionality.
There is no evidence that the powers under the Nigeria Data Protection Act are insufficient, that the existing enforcement mechanisms have not worked or that less intrusive options would not be sufficient.
“The Bill imposes one of the harshest sanctions available: the exclusion of digital platforms from Nigeria simply because they have not established a physical office.
What it is now trying to do indirectly by means of regulatory localisation requirements cannot be done directly by the National Assembly constitutionally. For millions of Nigerians, the practical effect would be indistinguishable from a ban on the platform.
“The National Assembly should, as a matter of urgency, reject and withdraw the Bill which is patently 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.
The Bill would harm the country’s digital economy, innovation ecosystem and international standing. The Bill is proposed as an amendment to the Nigeria Data Protection Act, with a view to enhancing regulatory compliance and consumer protection. However, the Bill has broad consequences in practice.
The Bill creates a statutory mechanism for the exclusion of digital platforms from Nigeria as it makes it mandatory for social media companies to establish physical offices in Nigeria to operate and empowers the NDPC to ban their operations after only 30 days of non-compliance.
“The amendment being discussed threatens much more than the interests of technology companies. This directly impacts the rights of millions of Nigerians who rely on digital platforms to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, receive and impart information, associate with others, participate in political life, carry out business, pursue education and engage in civic advocacy.
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 guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, digital rights and access to information.
The UN Human Rights Committee has consistently said that any restrictions on freedom of expression must always meet the criteria of legality, necessity and proportionality and that governments should use the least restrictive measures possible to achieve legitimate public aims.
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa urges States to enhance universal access to the internet, refrain from undue restrictions on digital communications and protect online intermediaries from unwarranted interference.
Former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression David Kaye has repeatedly warned governments against requiring technology companies to set up local offices as a means of facilitating censorship or indirect governmental pressure over content moderation decisions.
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has cautioned against broad intermediary obligations on States that encourage private censorship or allow governments to exert undue influence on online platforms.
The Special Rapporteur has also observed that governments should not offload the responsibility to regulate lawful expression onto private companies in ways that increase governmental leverage over digital platforms.
“The proposed amendment is in direct conflict with the objectives of the Nigeria Startup Act 2022 and the National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy.
“Mandatory localisation requirements add significantly to 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 large democratic jurisdiction that imposes a blanket precondition that all social media platforms must have a physical office to be able to provide services.
“This is an opportunity for the National Assembly to reassert its commitment to constitutional democracy, the rule of law and Nigeria’s digital future by withdrawing the Bill forthwith.”
