by Olaitan Babatunde
Imagine waking up one morning to discover that you can no longer access X, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or other online platforms because the government has ordered their suspension. You cannot share a news report, contact a customer, organise a protest or publish criticism of a public official in the usual way. This is not just a technology problem. It raises a constitutional question: how far can the government go in controlling the spaces Nigerians use to communicate?
Section 39 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. In today’s world, these activities increasingly happen online. Social media has become a place for political debate, journalism, business, civic organising and public accountability. However, freedom of expression is not absolute. Section 45 permits certain laws restricting rights protected under Section 39 when the restrictions are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for specified purposes, including defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health and the rights and freedoms of others. The existence of a national security concern does not, by itself, settle whether a particular restriction is lawful. Its legal basis, scope and justification matter.
Nigeria has already experienced a nationwide social media shutdown. In June 2021, the Federal Government suspended Twitter’s operations in the country. Access was restored in January 2022, but the legal dispute continued. On 14 July 2022, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice ruled that the suspension was unlawful and violated freedom of expression protections under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court directed Nigeria to take steps to prevent a repetition. The case matters because it demonstrated that a government’s stated security or public interest justification does not automatically place a nationwide platform ban beyond judicial scrutiny.
There is an important distinction between regulating harmful conduct online and shutting down an entire platform. Government can investigate and prosecute offences under valid laws, subject to constitutional safeguards. Platforms may also have legal obligations. But a nationwide shutdown affects people who have done nothing unlawful, including journalists, small businesses, students, civil society organisations and people who rely on digital services for their livelihoods. When a government restricts access to an entire platform, it must answer questions about the legal authority for the action, the evidence supporting it, whether a narrower measure could address the problem and whether the restriction is proportionate. A claim that something threatens national security should invite serious scrutiny, not end the discussion.
Citizens also have responsibilities. Freedom of expression does not grant permission to threaten people, incite violence, defame others with impunity or violate valid laws. Digital rights and accountability must work together. Users should verify information before sharing it, understand the laws governing online conduct and challenge unlawful restrictions through appropriate legal and civic channels. Journalists and civil society groups can document the effects of restrictions, while courts can examine whether government action falls within constitutional and treaty obligations.
The question, therefore, is not whether government has any power to regulate online activity. It does. The question is whether that power is exercised lawfully, for a legitimate purpose and in a way that respects the rights of everyone affected. The internet is not a lawless space, but neither should it become a space where constitutional freedoms disappear whenever public officials invoke security. In a democracy, the government must be able to explain its restrictions, and citizens must be able to question them.
