Military Dictatorship Was Brutal, but Civilian Rule in Nigeria Has Become Increasingly Hostile to Freedom of Speech -By Daniel Nduka Okonkwo

Freedom of speech stands as one of the most fundamental pillars of any functioning democracy, granting citizens the right to share ideas, voice dissent, and hold power accountable without fear of government reprisal. In Nigeria, this right is not a mere aspiration but a constitutional guarantee, enshrined in Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The provision protects the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference, extending beyond spoken and written words to cover art, music, symbolic protest, and the exchange of news across every available platform. It also affirms the right of citizens to establish media outlets, print or digital, while placing broadcast licensing under presidential or legislative authorization. The mass media, under this framework, is expected to serve as a check on government excess, holding leaders accountable to the people they serve.

Nigeria’s democracy is teetering between promise and peril. Once liberated from the iron fists of military juntas, the nation now finds its voice throttled by civilian laws masquerading as guardians of order. This is not democracy fulfilled but democracy betrayed, a betrayal that stains Nigeria’s global reputation, chills investor confidence, and suffocates innovation. Yet Nigerians have never been passive victims of silence. From the brutal censorship of the military era to the hard-won freedoms enshrined in the constitution, citizens have fought relentlessly to reclaim their right to speak, to protest, and to demand accountability. Today, through public advocacy, strategic litigation, and legislative lobbying, ordinary people wield the tools of democracy to resist repression and insist that freedom of expression is not a privilege granted by the state, but a right that defines it.

Yet as with most constitutional freedoms, this right is not absolute. Section 39(3) and Section 45 permit lawful restrictions where necessary for defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, or the protection of the rights and reputation of others. The law also allows for limitations tied to judicial independence, broadcasting regulation, confidentiality in certain relationships, and special conduct rules for government workers, security personnel, and the armed forces. In principle, these exceptions mirror standards found in many democracies. In practice, however, the space between legitimate regulation and outright suppression has become dangerously thin in Nigeria.

The most contested flashpoint in this struggle has been the Cybercrimes Prohibition and Prevention Act of 2015, particularly Section 24, and its subsequent amendment in 2024. The original provision criminalized the transmission of messages considered annoying, insulting, or offensive through computer networks, a definition so broad that it became a convenient tool for silencing journalists, bloggers, and ordinary citizens critical of those in power. Provisions penalizing the spread of false information compounded the danger, as government actors could brand legitimate investigative journalism or public criticism as falsehood, triggering arrest rather than rebuttal. The vagueness of the law gave powerful individuals a shortcut past civil defamation proceedings, allowing them instead to petition security agencies directly for the swift detention of their critics.

The abuse of this legislation did not go unchallenged. In 2022, the ECOWAS Court of Justice ruled that Section 24 of the 2015 Act violated the right to freedom of expression and ordered the Nigerian government to bring the law into compliance. Four years later, the National Assembly passed the Cybercrimes Amendment Act of 2024, removing the ambiguous language around annoying or insulting communication and narrowing the scope of the offense largely to messages intended to incite a breakdown of law and order or to issue explicit threats. Civil society organizations and legal advocates have cautiously welcomed the amendment while warning that residual ambiguities still leave room for misuse against digital activists, journalists, and everyday citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

The pattern of repression extends well beyond legislation. Independent journalists and media houses in Nigeria continue to face physical intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and equipment seizure when reporting on sensitive political or corruption stories. Archaic penal code provisions on sedition, defamation, and insulting public officials remain in active use against whistleblowers and dissenting voices. Proposed social media and hate speech bills continue to resurface in the legislature, each carrying the potential for harsher penalties and greater state control over public commentary. Security agencies, meant to protect citizens, have at times overstepped their legal mandate, treating legitimate criticism of political leadership as a threat to national security rather than an exercise of civic duty.

Those responsible for this pattern of repression span multiple layers of Nigerian society. Operatives within the police and intelligence services have frequently served as instruments of state control, executing arrests of bloggers, whistleblowers, and protesters. Political authorities and public officials have leaned on state apparatus, restrictive statutes, and outright intimidation to suppress opposition voices and shrink civic space. Beyond government actors, influential elites have exploited the legal system itself, filing expensive civil and criminal defamation suits designed less to seek justice than to exhaust and silence investigative journalists and ordinary citizens who dare to speak out.

Government officials, for their part, insist that Nigeria’s democratic commitments remain intact. The Minister of Information has maintained that no broadcast stations have been shut down for expressing dissent, while President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has publicly affirmed that democracy is built on the foundation of free speech, even as he cautions that this freedom does not extend to defamation or the deliberate spread of falsehood. These assurances, however, sit uneasily alongside Nigeria’s standing on the global stage. The country currently ranks 112th out of 180 nations on the World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, scoring 48.11 out of 100 points and falling into the category of a difficult environment for journalism and civic expression. This marks a ten-place improvement from Nigeria’s 122nd position in 2025, though the country remains, in the words of the RSF report, one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who continue to be monitored, attacked, and arbitrarily arrested.

The consequences of this ranking extend far beyond symbolism. A poor press freedom record undermines Nigeria’s claim to democratic leadership in West Africa, complicates comparisons with neighboring states undergoing their own political transitions, and strains diplomatic relationships with Western allies and international watchdogs who increasingly tie aid, cooperation, and trust to demonstrable respect for free expression. The economic toll is equally significant. Foreign investors and businesses generally favor environments where transparent, independent information flows freely and without state interference. Regulatory unpredictability created by laws like the Cybercrimes Act discourages international technology and media partnerships, while ongoing repression limits Nigeria’s potential to establish itself as a genuine hub for free press and creative economic activity in the region.

Still, there remains room for cautious optimism. Domestic advocacy, public interest litigation, and sustained legislative lobbying by Nigerian civil society groups signal to the international community that the country’s democratic institutions retain the capacity for self-correction. Successful legal challenges, such as the ECOWAS Court ruling that forced amendment of the Cybercrimes Act, demonstrate that Nigeria’s judiciary and civic actors can push back against executive and legislative overreach. This resilience, more than any official statement, may ultimately determine whether Nigeria closes the gap between its constitutional promises and its lived reality of press freedom.

Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is an investigative journalist, human rights advocate, and policy analyst based in Abuja, Nigeria. He is the publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate, a platform focused on accountability journalism, governance reporting, and the documentation of human rights issues across Africa. His work examines the intersection of political power, institutional accountability, systemic failure, and the human impact of corruption, with particular focus on Nigeria and the wider African continent.
Okonkwo’s reporting and analysis have been published in Sahara Reporters, African Defence Forum, Daily Trust, Vanguard, Daily Intel, Opinion Nigeria, African Angle, Local Newsbreak, and other international media outlets. His work is driven by a commitment to transparency, democratic governance, and justice. He also collaborates with Daniels Entertainment on human rights initiatives, extending his advocacy beyond traditional journalism into broader public engagement.
He is based in Abuja, Nigeria, and can be reached at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.