CSOs urge immediate repeal of secrecy laws in Nigeria’s security sector
A coalition of civil society organizations and media have called on the Nigerian government to urgently repeal and amend a series of secrecy laws that are obstructing transparency, limiting public oversight, and undermining accountability in the country’s Defence and Security sectors.
In a communique released after a policy dialogue on security sector reform and accountability, stakeholders emphasized the urgent need to address legal contradictions embedded in several Nigerian laws.
The dialogue was organized by the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Center (CISLAC/Transparency International in Nigeria (TI – Nigeria) in collaboration with Transparency International Defence and Security Program with support from the Ministry of foreign affairs of Netherlands under the aegis of a project titled “protecting human security by tackling the vicious circle of corruption.”
The communique was signed by Auwal Ibrahim Musa Rafsanjani, Executive Director of CISLAC/TI-Nigeria, Rose Anthony Elishams, NAWOJ and Abdullahi Ajose Asimi Community Reachout and Poverty Alleviation Initiative.
Related news
CISLAC lauds Lake Chad Basin Govs’ forum, calls for regional unity
Repatriation of $52.88m from Dizieni excites CISLAC, calls for accountable utilization
Alleged terrorism financing, others: CISLAC decries move by police to silence labour
The communique highlighted key provisions that are routinely misused to shield the security establishment from scrutiny, even in cases involving misappropriation of funds, procurement irregularities, or human rights violations.
The group demands the amendment or repeal of specific sections of the official secret act (Sections 1–4 & 6), the criminal code act (Section 97), and parts of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (Sections 11 & 12), as well as Section 3(2) of the Public Procurement Act.
According to the communique, these provisions collectively empower government agencies—especially in the Defence and Security sector—to withhold critical information from the public, civil society, and oversight institutions.
“These legal barriers serve as a shield for opacity,” the communique read. “They hinder democratic accountability, encourage misuse of public resources, and block citizens’ right to know how public funds are being utilized—particularly in a sector that receives a significant portion of the national budget.”
The Legal Contradictions
The Official Secrets Act, originally designed to protect national security, is frequently criticized for its vague language that criminalizes the unauthorized disclosure of official information, regardless of public interest. Sections 1 through 4 and Section 6, in particular, have been cited as being at odds with democratic norms, as they place overly broad restrictions on information sharing, even in non-sensitive contexts.
Section 97 of the Criminal Code Act further criminalizes unauthorized communication of information obtained through public service, reinforcing a culture of secrecy in governance.
Ironically, the Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted in 2011 to promote transparency and empower citizens, contains exceptions that have been weaponized to block access to information related to defence and security. Sections 11 and 12 of the FOI Act allow public institutions to deny requests on grounds of national security or personal privacy, often without a clear framework to determine whether such denials are justified.
In the same vein, Section 3(2) of the Public Procurement Act exempts military and intelligence procurements from standard procurement procedures, further shielding Defence contracts from public scrutiny or legislative oversight.
Calls for Reform and Oversight
Stakeholders argue that while national security is critical, it should not be used as a blanket excuse to evade transparency. “Secrecy without oversight creates fertile ground for corruption,” said one participant at the dialogue. “If the government is serious about fighting corruption and upholding human rights, these laws must be reviewed and harmonized to reflect democratic values.”
They further called on the National Assembly to prioritize legal reforms that reconcile the tension between national security and the right to information. Civil society also urged security agencies to proactively embrace openness by adopting transparent reporting systems, especially on budget allocations and contract awards.
Broader Implications
The Defence and Security sector consumes a large portion of Nigeria’s annual budget, yet remains one of the most opaque in terms of financial and operational reporting. Despite repeated calls for reform, security-related expenditures and procurement continue to operate behind a veil of secrecy, often under the justification of protecting national interest.
Analysts have warned that such opacity not only hampers effective governance but also erodes public trust in the institutions responsible for safeguarding national security.
