The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has called on the National Assembly to withdraw the proposed Nigeria Data Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2026, arguing that the legislation could pave the way for increased government control over social media platforms and online expression.
In a letter dated July 18, 2026, and addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, the rights organisation warned that the bill threatens constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and could undermine Nigeria’s digital economy.
The proposed legislation, sponsored by Senator Ned Nwoko (APC, Delta North), seeks to require social media companies, data controllers and data processors operating in Nigeria to establish physical offices within the country.
It also empowers the Nigeria Data Protection Commission to suspend or prohibit the operations of entities that fail to comply within 30 days.
SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, who signed the letter, described the bill as an indirect attempt to regulate social media.
“The Nigeria Data Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2026, is a backdoor attempt to regulate social media and expand governmental control over online expression, which is incompatible with international human rights standards,” the organisation stated.
According to SERAP, compelling technology companies to maintain physical offices in Nigeria could expose them to political pressure and make censorship demands easier to enforce.
“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 letter said.
The organisation argued that the amendment would grant the NDPC extensive powers capable of excluding digital platforms from the Nigerian market, thereby affecting millions of users who rely on social media for communication, business, education and civic participation.
SERAP recalled previous attempts by the National Assembly to regulate social media, noting that they faced widespread public criticism over concerns about freedom of expression.
The group also referenced the ECOWAS Court of Justice’s judgment in the case challenging the Federal Government’s suspension of Twitter, maintaining that the proposed amendment could produce similar consequences through regulatory measures.
“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,” SERAP said.
The rights organisation further argued that the bill lacks adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight, sufficient time for compliance and consideration of less restrictive alternatives before sanctions are imposed.
It maintained that while governments have the authority to regulate digital services, such regulation must comply with constitutional provisions and international human rights obligations.
“Measures regulating digital services should enhance transparency, accountability and users’ rights—not create additional tools for censorship, surveillance or political interference,” SERAP added.
The organisation warned that the legislation could negatively affect innovation, startups and investment in Nigeria’s technology sector by increasing compliance costs for digital businesses.
It also argued that no major democratic country makes the establishment of a physical office a blanket requirement for every social media platform before offering services.
SERAP urged lawmakers to reject the proposal, insisting that it is inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“The National Assembly should immediately reject and withdraw the Bill, as it is manifestly incompatible with the Nigerian Constitution and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations,” the organisation stated.
It warned that if the bill is eventually passed in its current or substantially similar form, it would challenge its legality in court in the public interest.
