By Headlinenews.news Desk | Special Analysis.
Nigeria’s political space has been stirred by fresh controversy following remarks credited to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, in which he alluded during a live television appearance to the tapping of the phone of the National Security Adviser — a disclosure that has since triggered widespread legal and security debate.
Security governance experts argue that such an admission — whether literal, exaggerated, or rhetorical — raises grave constitutional questions, particularly because surveillance authority in Nigeria is tightly regulated by law and cannot be exercised arbitrarily by individuals.
At the constitutional level, privacy protections are explicit and unequivocal.
Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states:
“The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.”
Legal scholars note that this provision establishes telephone communications as a fundamental right, meaning any interception must pass strict legality tests — necessity, proportionality, and lawful authorisation.
Statutory law reinforces this constitutional shield.
Under Section 146 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, the law provides that:
“A person shall not intercept a communication… except as authorised by a warrant issued by a judge.”
This clause makes judicial warrant the central legality threshold.
Even intelligence and law-enforcement agencies cannot lawfully tap communications without court backing except under narrowly defined emergency frameworks.
Further criminal liability arises under cyber-surveillance statutes.
Section 12 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 provides:
“Any person who intentionally intercepts, without lawful authority, any non-public transmission of computer data… commits an offence.”
Given that modern telephony operates through digital switching and data routing systems, unlawful phone tapping falls within cyber-interception offences punishable by imprisonment and fines upon conviction.
Security operations are also institutionally restricted.
The National Intelligence Agencies Act empowers agencies such as the DSS, NIA, and DIA to gather intelligence strictly within national-security mandates — not for personal, political, or unsanctioned deployments.
Surveillance authority is therefore institutional, not individual.
Case-Law Precedents in Nigeria.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly upheld privacy protections against unlawful intrusion.
FRN v. Daniel (2011)
The Federal High Court held that interception of private communications without lawful authorisation constitutes a violation of constitutional privacy rights and is inadmissible where improperly obtained.
Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606
Though centred on unlawful search and seizure, the Court of Appeal reinforced the doctrine that security agencies must operate strictly within constitutional and statutory boundaries when infringing on citizens’ privacy.
Abubakar v. DSS (Unreported FHC decision)
The court ruled that surveillance and monitoring activities conducted without lawful basis breach Section 37 privacy guarantees and expose the state to liability.
Collectively, these precedents affirm three principles:
• Privacy is constitutionally enforceable.
• Surveillance requires lawful authority.
• Illegally obtained intelligence is challengeable in court.
National Security Sensitivity.
Analysts stress that the gravity of the controversy is amplified by the office allegedly referenced.
The National Security Adviser sits at the apex of Nigeria’s intelligence coordination structure, meaning any claim of unauthorised monitoring carries institutional implications beyond personal privacy.
Security professionals warn that public normalisation of illegal surveillance — particularly involving senior security officials — risks eroding trust within intelligence hierarchies at a time when operational cohesion is critical to counter-terrorism efforts.
Political Communication Fallout.
The surveillance remark is the latest in a string of high-visibility interventions by the former governor, including his recent airport confrontation narrative with security operatives — a claim some insiders privately dispute as exaggerated.
Political risk analysts interpret the pattern as a forceful re-entry strategy into national relevance amid shifting alignments ahead of the 2027 electoral cycle, though supporters insist he remains consistent with his historically blunt communication style.
Rule-of-Law Threshold.
Legal voices maintain that televised admissions suggesting unlawful acts cannot be dismissed as mere political banter.
Where such statements imply statutory breaches, they argue, investigative authorities are duty-bound to determine:
• Whether surveillance occurred
• Under what authority
• Whether warrants existed
• Whether rights were violated
In a democracy confronting terrorism and internal security pressures, experts insist that intelligence tools must remain governed by law, not political rivalry.
National Patriots Movement.
The National Patriots Movement views the televised surveillance claim as reckless and institutionally corrosive.
Nigeria’s security architecture must never be trivialised through unlawful intelligence insinuations. No individual is above the law.
Patriotism demands restraint, responsibility, and respect for democratic safeguards, particularly at a time when national unity and counter-terror coordination remain paramount.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser. MFR
Editor in Chief. Headlinenews.news
