Freedom of Assembly and Association: Rights and Restrictions in Nigeria

I. Introduction: The Cornerstone of Democracy

In the tapestry of democratic governance, few threads are as vital and interwoven as the freedoms of assembly and association. These rights, far from being mere legalistic pronouncements, are the very lifeblood of a vibrant civil society, enabling citizens to voice their opinions, coalesce around shared interests, and hold their governments accountable. They provide the essential infrastructure for collective action, fostering public discourse, facilitating political participation, and serving as a crucial bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. Without the ability to gather, share ideas, and form groups, the democratic ideal of government by the people risks becoming a hollow promise, leaving individuals isolated and disempowered.

Nigeria, as a federal republic with a stated commitment to democratic principles, enshrines these fundamental rights within its supreme law. However, the practical reality of exercising these freedoms in Nigeria has often been a complex and contentious terrain, marked by a dynamic interplay between constitutional guarantees and legal or de facto restrictions. This comprehensive blog post will delve into the intricacies of freedom of assembly and association in Nigeria, examining the constitutional and legal frameworks, exploring the permissible limitations, analyzing landmark judicial pronouncements, and dissecting the real-world challenges and manifestations of these rights. Our aim is to provide a holistic and nuanced understanding, leaving no blind spots in our exploration of this critical aspect of Nigerian civic life.

II. Constitutional and Legal Framework in Nigeria

The foundation for the rights to freedom of assembly and association in Nigeria is firmly laid in its grundnorm – the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Beyond domestic law, Nigeria’s adherence to international human rights instruments further strengthens these protections, even if their application often presents complexities.

A. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

The Nigerian Constitution, in Chapter IV, enumerates the fundamental rights of its citizens. Among these, two sections are particularly pertinent to our discussion:

1. Section 40: Right to assemble freely and associate with other personsThis section is the primary constitutional anchor for these rights. It unequivocally states: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.”1

   Th2e breadth of this provision is noteworthy. It extends the right not only to formal associations like political parties and trade unions but also to “any other association for the protection of his interests,” encompassing a vast array of informal groups, civil society organizations, and community initiatives. The emphasis on the protection of “interests” underscores the participatory and advocacy dimensions inherent in these rights.

2. Section 39: Freedom of Expression (inter-relation with assembly)While distinct, freedom of expression is intrinsically linked to freedom of assembly. Section 39 guarantees “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”

   Public assemblies and protests are often, if not always, a form of collective expression. The ability to gather and voice grievances, advocate for policies, or celebrate shared beliefs relies heavily on the concomitant right to express those ideas. Restrictions on assembly can thus indirectly, but severely, curtail freedom of expression, and vice versa.

3. Section 38: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (relevance to association)Though seemingly tangential, Section 38, guaranteeing “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” also holds relevance for freedom of association. Many associations, particularly faith-based organizations or those built around ideological principles, derive their impetus from shared beliefs and convictions. The freedom to hold and manifest these beliefs often necessitates associating with others who share similar thoughts and consciences.

B. International Human Rights Instruments Ratified by Nigeria

Nigeria is a signatory to several key international and regional human rights treaties, which, upon ratification, generally form part of its domestic law and serve as benchmarks for the interpretation of constitutional rights:

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 20 of the UDHR proclaims, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” While not a legally binding treaty, the UDHR serves as a foundational document for international human rights law and heavily influences subsequent binding instruments.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 21 of the ICCPR states, “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (³ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article 22 further guarantees freedom of association, with similar limitations. The ICCPR’s emphasis on “necessary in a democratic society” and the “proportionality” of restrictions is a crucial standard against which Nigerian laws and practices can be measured.
3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR): As a regional instrument, the ACHPR holds particular significance for Nigeria. Article 10 guarantees “Every individual shall have the right to free association with others,” and Article 11 states, “Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others⁴.” The ACHPR, having been domesticated in Nigeria, is directly enforceable in Nigerian courts.

C. Key Legislation Governing Public Order and Assembly

Beyond the constitutional and international frameworks, specific Nigerian statutes regulate public gatherings and the formation of associations:

1. Public Order Act: This Act has historically been the most contentious piece of legislation concerning freedom of assembly. It mandates that any public assembly, meeting, or procession on public roads or places of public resort requires a license (permit) from the Governor of the State. Historically, this requirement has been a significant point of friction, with law enforcement often using the absence of a permit as grounds to disperse protests, even peaceful ones. However, as we will explore in the judicial interpretation section, this aspect of the Act has been significantly challenged and, in key respects, invalidated by the courts.
2. Police Act: The Police Act outlines the powers and duties of the Nigeria Police Force, including their role in maintaining public order and managing assemblies. While it confers powers to prevent breaches of the peace, its application must always be within the bounds of constitutional rights.
3. Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA): For the formation of more formal associations, particularly Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) is the primary legislation. It dictates the registration processes, governance structures, and regulatory oversight for such entities. Recent amendments to CAMA have, however, raised concerns among civil society groups regarding potential government overreach and undue restrictions on their autonomy.
4. Terrorism Prevention Act: In the context of national security, the Terrorism Prevention Act (and its subsequent amendments) grants the government powers to proscribe organizations deemed to be involved in terrorist activities. While legitimate in principle, the broad definitions of “terrorism” and the process of proscription have been criticized for potentially being used to target legitimate associations and stifle dissent, blurring the lines between national security concerns and the suppression of fundamental rights.

III. The Scope and Limits of the Rights

While fundamental, the rights to freedom of assembly and association are not absolute. Like most rights in a democratic society, they are subject to limitations aimed at balancing individual freedoms with collective societal interests, such as public order, national security, and the protection of others’ rights.

A. What Constitutes Lawful Assembly?

The cornerstone of a protected assembly is its peaceful nature.

1. Peaceful assembly vs. Violent assembly: The right to assemble freely is explicitly linked to the concept of “peaceful” assembly in international and increasingly, Nigerian law. An assembly that incites violence, engages in destruction of property, or poses an immediate threat to life and limb generally falls outside the scope of constitutional protection. The challenge lies in distinguishing genuine threats to public peace from mere inconvenience or dissent.
2. Public vs. Private gatherings: While the Public Order Act primarily targets public gatherings, the constitutional right extends to private assemblies as well. The state’s power to regulate or restrict private gatherings is significantly more limited and requires a very high threshold of justification.

B. Permissible Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly and Association

The Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 45, provides for derogations from fundamental rights. These limitations must meet specific criteria:

1. Derogations Clause in the Constitution: Section 45(1) states that nothing in Sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of the Constitution (which include freedom of assembly and association) shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of:
   • defence,
   • public safety,
   • public order,
   • public morality,
   • public health, or
   • for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.
2. Proportionality and Necessity Test for Restrictions: Crucially, any restriction must be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.” This implies a proportionality test, meaning the restriction must be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. It also implies a necessity test, meaning the restriction must be necessary to achieve that aim and that less restrictive alternatives would not suffice. Arbitrary or overly broad restrictions are generally not considered “reasonably justifiable.” This standard is reinforced by international human rights instruments.
3. Role of Law Enforcement in Managing Assemblies: The police and other security agencies have a legitimate role in maintaining law and order during public assemblies. This includes facilitating peaceful protests, providing security for participants, and intervening where there is a clear and present danger of violence or a breach of the peace. However, their role is not to prevent or suppress peaceful assemblies.

C. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The Nigerian judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting the scope of these rights and challenging legislative or executive overreach.

1. Cases challenging the Public Order Act (e.g., ANPP v. IGP, Inspector General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party): These are arguably the most significant judgments concerning freedom of assembly in Nigeria. In the landmark case of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) v. Inspector General of Police (2006), the Federal High Court, and subsequently the Court of Appeal in Inspector General of Police v.

All Nigeria Peoples Party (2008), delivered a decisive blow to the controversial permit requirement of the Public Order Act. The courts unequivocally declared that the requirement for a police permit as a precondition for holding rallies or processions was unconstitutional, being inconsistent with Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. This effectively nullified the need for protesters to obtain police permits, affirming that citizens do not need permission to exercise their fundamental right to peaceful assembly.

2. Cases defining the scope of peaceful protest: While the permit requirement has been struck down, courts continue to affirm that protests must remain peaceful. Cases have clarified that the right does not extend to engaging in violence, destruction, or incitement. The line between a peaceful protest that causes inconvenience and one that genuinely threatens public order remains a subject of ongoing judicial scrutiny.

3. Cases related to proscription of associations/groups: The proscription of groups, particularly under anti-terrorism legislation, has also been challenged in courts. The judiciary often grapples with balancing national security concerns against the fundamental right to association. Courts typically assess whether the proscription meets the “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” test, including whether the group genuinely poses a threat and whether due process was followed.

IV. Practical Manifestations and Challenges

Despite robust constitutional guarantees and landmark judicial pronouncements, the practical enjoyment of freedom of assembly and association in Nigeria faces significant challenges.

A. The Right to Protest and Demonstrations

1. Police permits and the “permit controversy”: Even after the ANPP judgments, law enforcement agencies have, on occasion, continued to insist on permits or have used the pretext of maintaining public order to disperse peaceful gatherings. This indicates a persistent gap between legal precedent and actual practice, often attributed to a lack of awareness, insufficient training, or an institutional inclination towards control rather than facilitation.
2. Use of force by security agencies: A recurring challenge is the excessive use of force by security agencies in managing protests. Instances of live ammunition, tear gas, arbitrary arrests, and even fatalities during protests have been widely documented, raising serious human rights concerns and eroding public trust. The #EndSARS protests of 2020 starkly highlighted these issues, drawing international condemnation.
3. Peaceful vs. Disruptive protests: The state often frames protests as “disruptive” to justify dispersal, even when they are largely peaceful but impede traffic or economic activities. Distinguishing between acceptable levels of disruption inherent in public protest and genuinely unlawful acts remains a point of contention. The onus is on the authorities to demonstrate that any disruption is severe enough to warrant intervention and that the intervention is proportionate.

B. Formation and Operation of Associations

1. Registration requirements for NGOs, CSOs, political parties, trade unions: While registration is a legitimate regulatory requirement for formal associations, the process can sometimes be cumbersome, opaque, or subject to arbitrary delays, particularly for groups perceived as critical of the government. For political parties and trade unions, specific electoral and labour laws impose additional regulatory burdens.
2. Challenges faced by civil society organizations: Beyond registration, CSOs often face challenges such as difficulty in accessing funding (including from international sources), intrusive financial oversight, and even accusations of being “unpatriotic” or “destabilizing” for engaging in advocacy.
3. Government oversight and potential interference: Recent amendments to the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) have introduced provisions that allow for the suspension of trustees of associations and the appointment of interim managers, if deemed in the “public interest.” Civil society groups have widely criticized these provisions as potentially opening the door to arbitrary government interference in the internal affairs of independent organizations, threatening their autonomy and ability to function without fear of reprisal.

C. Case Studies and Recent Developments

1. #EndSARS protests and government response: The #EndSARS movement in October 2020, which saw widespread youth-led protests against police brutality, epitomized the complexities of freedom of assembly in Nigeria. Despite largely peaceful demonstrations, the government’s response involved a heavy-handed crackdown, including the alleged use of live ammunition at the Lekki Toll Gate, freezing of protesters’ bank accounts, and arrests. This incident ignited a national and international outcry, revealing deep fissures between citizens’ right to protest and the state’s approach to dissent.
2. Proscription of IPOB, IMN, and other groups: The proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) under anti-terrorism laws has been highly controversial. Critics argue that these proscriptions, often accompanied by military crackdowns, have been disproportionate and have failed to address the root causes of grievances, while simultaneously infringing upon the rights to assembly and association of their members and sympathizers. The legal basis and fairness of these proscriptions have been subject to intense debate and litigation.
3. Role of social media in organizing and restricting assemblies: Social media platforms have become indispensable tools for organizing protests and mobilizing support in Nigeria. However, they have also become a new frontier for state control, with government attempts to regulate or even shut down social media (as seen with the Twitter ban in 2021) often justified on grounds of national security or preventing the spread of “fake news.” This highlights the evolving nature of assembly in the digital age and the challenges of protecting these rights online.

V. Emerging Issues and Future Directions

The landscape of freedom of assembly and association in Nigeria is dynamic, continually shaped by technological advancements, evolving social movements, and ongoing legal and political debates.

A. Digital Assembly and Online Association

1. Protests organized via social media: The speed and reach of social media platforms have transformed how protests are organized, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and enabling rapid mobilization. This presents both opportunities for civic engagement and challenges for authorities seeking to regulate or monitor such activities.
2. Regulation of online spaces: Governments globally are grappling with how to regulate online spaces without stifling fundamental rights. In Nigeria, proposals for social media regulation and laws against “hate speech” have sparked fears of censorship and restrictions on online assembly and expression. The balance between combating misinformation and protecting free speech online is a critical and ongoing debate.

B. Balancing Security Concerns with Fundamental Rights

1. Counter-terrorism measures and their impact on civic space: The fight against terrorism, particularly in the Northeast and other parts of the country, has led to expanded state powers and security legislation. While necessary for national security, these measures must be carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not unduly restrict legitimate civic activities, association, or expression, creating a shrinking civic space.
2. Addressing hate speech and incitement: The proliferation of hate speech and incitement to violence, particularly along ethnic and religious lines, poses a genuine threat to social cohesion. However, addressing these issues through legislation must be carefully calibrated to avoid overreach that stifles legitimate criticism, dissent, or the expression of unpopular opinions. International standards emphasize that restrictions must be narrowly defined and proportionate.

C. Recommendations for Strengthening Freedom of Assembly and Association

Achieving a robust and truly democratic environment in Nigeria requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders to strengthen the enjoyment of these fundamental rights:

1. Legislative reforms (e.g., amendments to Public Order Act): While courts have invalidated the permit requirement, formally amending or repealing the problematic sections of the Public Order Act would align legislation with judicial pronouncements and reduce ambiguity. Similarly, CAMA provisions that allow for arbitrary interference with CSOs should be reviewed and amended to ensure independent oversight.
2. Training and sensitisation of law enforcement: Continuous and mandatory training for police and other security agencies on human rights, crowd control management, and the constitutional right to peaceful protest is crucial. The focus should shift from suppression to facilitation, with an emphasis on de-escalation tactics and respecting the rights of peaceful demonstrators.
3. Promoting civic education and awareness: Educating citizens about their rights to assembly and association, as well as the legitimate boundaries of these rights, is essential. Similarly, public awareness campaigns for government officials on their obligations to uphold these rights can foster a more rights-respecting environment.
4. Role of the judiciary in upholding rights: The judiciary must continue to serve as an independent arbiter, robustly upholding fundamental rights against executive or legislative overreach. Speedy resolution of human rights cases and consistent application of the “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” test are paramount.
5. Strengthening independent oversight bodies: Empowering and adequately funding independent institutions like the National Human Rights Commission to investigate abuses, monitor compliance, and advocate for human rights is critical. Their ability to provide independent oversight and accountability can serve as a vital check on state power.

VI. Conclusion: Upholding Democratic Principles

The freedoms of assembly and association are not mere luxuries but indispensable prerequisites for a functioning democracy. They empower citizens, foster accountability, and provide legitimate avenues for expressing dissent and shaping public policy. In Nigeria, while the constitutional framework provides a strong foundation for these rights, their practical enjoyment has been consistently challenged by restrictive laws, disproportionate state responses, and evolving societal dynamics.

The journey towards full realization of these rights is ongoing. It requires a sustained commitment from the government to adhere to its constitutional and international obligations, a vigilant civil society to advocate for and monitor compliance, and an independent judiciary to serve as the ultimate guardian of fundamental freedoms.

By ensuring that Nigerians can truly assemble freely and associate without undue fear, the nation can strengthen its democratic institutions, foster inclusive governance, and pave the way for a more just and equitable society where every voice has the opportunity to be heard. The vibrant and often challenging history of these rights in Nigeria serves as a powerful reminder that democracy is not a static state but a continuous process of struggle, affirmation, and protection of fundamental liberties.