By Jacobs Chimezie Hapijo
The statement credited to Mallam Nasir El-Rufai alleging that they tapped the phone line of the National Security Adviser, if indeed true, constitutes a brazen assault on Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and a reckless affront to the rule of law. In any civilized constitutional order, the unlawful interception of private communications, particularly that of a principal national security officer, is not mere political bravado; it is a serious criminal offence with profound legal and national security implications.
Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees and protects the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications. This provision is categorical and binding. It is not decorative constitutional poetry. It is enforceable law. No individual, whether acting in public or private capacity, has the authority to violate this right except strictly in accordance with due process of law.
Any act of phone tapping or electronic interception without lawful judicial authorization is a direct violation of this constitutional guarantee. The only legally recognized exceptions must be backed by statutory authority and proper warrants issued within the confines of the law. Anything short of this amounts to illegality.
Further, Section 12 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 criminalizes the intentional and unauthorized interception of electronic communications. Upon conviction, offenders are liable to terms of imprisonment and/or substantial fines. The law is unequivocal: unauthorized monitoring, recording, or interception of data transmissions is a punishable offence.
The Nigerian Communications Act, 2003 reinforces this position by prohibiting unlawful interception or disclosure of communications carried over licensed networks. Telecommunications infrastructure is protected by law, and interference without lawful authorization attracts criminal sanctions.
Additionally, under the Criminal Code Act, acts of conspiracy, abuse of office, unlawful access, or misuse of governmental machinery to obtain private communications may constitute felonies. Where state apparatus is deployed for personal or political ends outside lawful authority, the consequences may include prosecution, imprisonment, and other statutory penalties.
The implications are even more grave considering that the alleged target is the National Security Adviser, the nerve centre of Nigeria’s intelligence coordination and counter-terrorism strategy. Unauthorized interception of such communications is not merely a private rights violation; it potentially compromises classified intelligence, endangers national security operations, and undermines the safety of personnel. In extreme cases, such conduct could invite scrutiny under laws relating to official secrets and national security breaches.
Nigeria is governed by laws, not by impulses or political expediency. No citizen, however influential, is above the Constitution. If credible evidence substantiates these allegations, the only lawful path forward is an impartial investigation and, where warranted, prosecution in accordance with due process.
Democracy cannot survive selective obedience to the law. Constitutional guarantees must mean what they say. The right to privacy is fundamental. Its violation, especially at the highest levels of national security, cannot be trivialized, excused, or normalized.
The enforcement of constitutional rights is not optional. It is the very foundation upon which the Nigerian state rests.
Jacobs Chimezie Hapijo
Writing from Port Harcourt
