Nigeria's spyware debate exposes the legal loophole
Surveillance control · 16.09.2026

In Nigeria, experts gathered to discuss spyware and surveillance — and the result was a perfect snapshot of a state that swears by legality while leaving itself a loophole the size of an entire country.

Natalia Krapiva, a technology law lawyer, explained the essence simply: spyware is secretly installed on a device without the owner's knowledge and extracts everything — messages, photos, contacts, even keystrokes. Mass surveillance, according to her, is also used to monitor protesters — people who simply disagree with the authorities. The consequences aren't limited to a loss of privacy — it's about the destruction of personal and professional life.

Lawyer Olumide Babalola pointed out that surveillance itself isn't prohibited, but it must fit within the framework of the law — the Constitution, the Communications Act, and the NCC's 2019 Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, with proper procedures and warrants. The real problem lies elsewhere: while arrests and charges get recorded, no one accounts for the loss of personal autonomy — the fact that what's supposedly private has long since been viewed by someone else.

Ibukunoluwa Owa, a representative of the National Data Protection Commission, added a note of methodology: it's important to distinguish between spyware and surveillance, since the legal response depends on it. Surveillance must be justified and proportionate — which sounds lovely on paper.

Journalist Fidelis Mac-Leva, who has worked on this topic for two decades, put it more bluntly: he has personally seen cases where surveillance equipment was used against human rights defenders and journalists, some of whom were later detained right while doing their jobs.

The police, naturally, defend themselves with tools of their own. The National Cybercrime Centre, established under the 2021 Cybercrimes Act, explains that criminals also use sophisticated technology, so authorities need to as well. They seize phones and gadgets from suspects — but, they insist, without coercion. A phrasing that makes you want to ask: if a device is "required for the investigation," isn't that exactly what coercion looks like, just politely worded?

Source: https://www.icirnigeria.org/spyware-surveillance-experts-raise-privacy-concerns-as-police-defend-digital-investigations/