Nigeria’s democratic story cannot be understood only through elections, political parties and campaign seasons. It must also be understood through the daily space available for citizens to speak, criticise, protest, publish and question those in power. A democracy may hold elections and still weaken itself if ordinary people begin to fear the consequences of using their voice.
The legal foundation appears clear. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution protects freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. This protection is central to public life because it gives citizens the right to criticise policies, question public officials, challenge institutions and participate in national debate.
Yet Nigeria’s public space has often lived with a tension between constitutional promise and enforcement reality. The issue is not whether the state has a duty to prevent violence, regulate broadcasting or protect public order. It does. The harder question is whether those powers are sometimes applied in ways that make lawful criticism feel unsafe.
From Military Fear to Democratic Pressure
Under military rule, fear was often more direct. Decrees, detention powers, newspaper closures and restrictions on publication were used against journalists and critics. The struggle for press freedom during that period became one of the defining battles of Nigerian public life.
Democratic rule changed the structure of power, but it did not remove the old question of state pressure. Instead of open military decrees, the pressure in the current period often appears through legal complaints, police invitations, cybercrime allegations, protest prosecutions and regulatory warnings. The atmosphere is different from military rule, but the effect can still be serious when citizens begin to calculate the personal cost of speaking.
This is why Nigeria’s democratic health must be measured not only by whether criticism exists, but by whether criticism can be made without fear of harassment, intimidation or uncertain legal exposure.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
The Cybercrimes Act and Online Speech
The Cybercrimes Act has become one of the most important laws in Nigeria’s debate over public expression. The 2024 amendment narrowed Section 24, replacing older wording with language focused on messages that are pornographic, or messages known to be false for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life, or causing such a message to be sent.
That amendment was important because the older provision had been criticised as broad and open to misuse. But reforming the wording of a law does not automatically reform the way power is used. The concern around the Cybercrimes Act has continued because journalists, bloggers and critics have still faced arrest, detention, prosecution or harassment linked to online publications and public commentary.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reported in November 2025 that at least 25 journalists had faced prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act before the 2024 reforms. It also reported that five journalists had been prosecuted for cybercrime since the reforms, while others faced harassment without formal charges.
This does not mean every cybercrime investigation is false or illegitimate. Online threats, fraud, impersonation and deliberate falsehoods can cause real harm. But when a law associated with digital crime is repeatedly used in cases involving journalism, corruption reporting or criticism of powerful people, the wider public receives a warning. A citizen may begin to ask not only whether a post is true, but whether someone powerful may treat it as a crime.
The NHRC Warning on Freedom of Expression
The National Human Rights Commission addressed this concern in its April 2025 advisory on the protection of the right to freedom of expression in Nigeria. The advisory applied directly to the interpretation and use of Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024.
The Commission warned that law enforcement agencies should recognise freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. It also stated that any limitation on this right must meet standards of necessity, legality and proportionality. Most importantly, it advised that arrests or prosecutions under Section 24 should be based on clear and specific evidence of an actual threat to public order, not vague or generalised interpretations of the law.
That warning matters because it came from an official human rights institution, not from a partisan campaign. It acknowledged that Nigeria can protect public order, but insisted that criticism of government, public institutions or officials should not automatically be treated as criminal conduct.
Protest, Treason and the Cost of Public Anger
The 2024 #EndBadGovernance protests added another layer to the history of fear in Nigeria’s public life. The protests were driven by public anger over economic hardship and governance. They also brought a strong security response and later prosecutions.
Human Rights Watch reported in September 2024 that 10 protesters arrested during the August protests were charged with treason, an offence that can carry the death penalty. Reuters also reported that 76 people, including minors, were later charged with treason and inciting a military coup after the protests. President Bola Tinubu later ordered that minors detained in connection with the protests should be freed and that treason charges against them should be dropped.
These events are historically important because protest is one of the core ways citizens express dissatisfaction in a democracy. The state can act where protest becomes violent, where property is destroyed, or where there is credible evidence of serious criminal conduct. But when protest related cases involve treason charges, the public message becomes much larger than the courtroom. It can make citizens wonder whether joining a protest may expose them to the most severe language of state security.
That kind of fear does not need to silence everyone. It only needs to make enough people stay home, delete a post, avoid a meeting, or decide that public anger is too risky to express.
Broadcast Regulation Before the 2027 Elections
Broadcast regulation is another important part of this story. Nigeria is a country with deep ethnic, religious and political tensions. No responsible broadcasting system should encourage hate speech, deliberate falsehood, incitement or reckless claims that may inflame violence.
But regulation also carries danger when it is too broad or unevenly enforced. In April 2026, Reuters reported that the National Broadcasting Commission had barred radio and television presenters from airing personal opinions, intimidating guests or broadcasting divisive political content ahead of the 2027 elections. The NBC said it was enforcing the broadcasting code against unsubstantiated allegations, hate speech and inflammatory material.
Critics, including SERAP and Amnesty International Nigeria, warned that the directive could pressure journalists and media organisations into self censorship. Their concern was not that broadcasters should be free to spread dangerous falsehoods. The concern was that vague or heavy regulation could make media houses avoid legitimate political criticism, especially during an election season.
For a democracy, the challenge is balance. Broadcasting rules should protect the public from dangerous incitement, but they should not make presenters afraid to ask difficult questions or make stations afraid to host strong criticism of public power.
How Fear Works Without Being Declared
Fear in public life does not always arrive as an official policy. It can grow through repeated examples. One journalist detained. One activist summoned. One protester charged. One media house sanctioned. One social media user arrested. Each case may have its own explanation, but together they can shape behaviour across society.
Editors may soften headlines. Presenters may avoid uncomfortable questions. Sources may refuse to speak on record. Protesters may stay away from demonstrations. Citizens may delete posts before anyone complains. The result is a quieter public space, not because the law says criticism is banned, but because people are no longer sure what criticism may cost.
This is the most important historical lesson. Rights do not disappear only when they are removed from the Constitution. Sometimes they weaken when citizens become afraid to use them.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
The Line Between Threat and Criticism
Nigeria faces real security challenges. The state has a duty to protect lives, prevent violence and maintain public order. But that duty must be separated from the right of citizens to criticise government.
A citizen who demands accountability is not automatically an enemy of the state. A journalist who investigates public spending is not automatically a cybercriminal. A protester who condemns hardship is not automatically a traitor. A broadcaster who questions official conduct is not automatically promoting disorder.
The strength of democracy lies in its ability to tolerate discomfort. Public criticism may be sharp, embarrassing and politically inconvenient, but it is not the same as violence. When a state blurs that line, it may win silence for a time, but it weakens trust in the long run.
Author’s Note
The story of fear in Nigeria’s public life is not only about arrests, laws or broadcasting rules. It is about the distance between having a right and feeling free enough to use it. Nigeria’s democracy will be judged not only by election results, courtrooms and official statements, but by whether citizens, journalists, protesters and media workers can criticise power without being treated as threats. A country becomes stronger when its people can speak honestly, challenge authority and demand better governance without fear becoming the price of citizenship.
References
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Section 39.
National Human Rights Commission, Advisory on the Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression in Nigeria, 4 April 2025.
Cybercrimes, Prohibition, Prevention, etc, Amendment Act, 2024.
Committee to Protect Journalists, 3 Nigerian Journalists Detained on Cybercrime Allegations, Despite Reform, 14 November 2025.
Reuters, Nigeria Tightens Broadcast Rules to Curb Divisive Content Ahead of 2027 Elections, 20 April 2026.
Human Rights Watch, Nigeria, Protesters Charged with Treason, 6 September 2024.
Reuters, Nigeria Charges 76, Including Minors, with Treason After August Protests, 1 November 2024.
Reuters, Nigeria Frees Minors Charged with Treason Over Protests, 4 November 2024.African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Media Rights Agenda and Others v. Nigeria, 31 October 1998.
