FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION VS NATIONAL SECURITY: STRIKING A CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE.

1.0. ABSTRACT 

Freedom of expression is one of the essential rights of a democratic society. It allows people to share their opinions, ideas, and information without fear. In Nigeria, this right is guaranteed by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). However, the same Constitution also allows the government to limit this right under Section 45 when national security or public order is at risk. This article discusses how Nigeria tries to balance these two important interests – the right to speak freely and the need to protect the nation. It looks at key laws, court decisions, and recent events to show how freedom of expression can be protected without endangering national security. 

2.0. INTRODUCTION 

Freedom of expression is one of the strongest pillars of any democratic society. It allows citizens to share their thoughts or opinions, criticize government actions, and participate in national discussions without fear. In Nigeria, this right is protected by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees every person the freedom to hold opinions, receive, and share information.1 

However, this freedom is not absolute. The same Constitution, under Section 45, allows the government to restrict freedom of expression in certain cases – such as protecting national security, public safety, or public order.2 This creates a delicate balance between individual rights and the collective interest of the nation. 

Over the years, several court decisions, laws, and political events have tested this balance. While some actions by the government are aimed at maintaining peace and order, they have also raised questions about whether such actions violate constitutional freedoms. This article examines how Nigeria manages the tension between freedom of expression and national security, exploring the legal provisions, court interpretations, and real-life incidents that shape this ongoing debate. 

3.0. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

Freedom of expression is one of the most important rights in a democratic society because it allows individuals to share ideas, opinions, and hold the government accountable. It covers freedom to hold opinions, to receive information, and to communicate thoughts through any medium. The Nigerian Constitution protects this right under Section 39(1), but it may be limited under Section 45(1) in the interest of public safety, morality, or national security.3 

In Arthur Nwankwo v. The State4, The Court of Appeal held that public officials must be open to criticism and that criminal laws which suppress such criticism contradict democratic ideals. The court emphasized that freedom of expression is necessary for the growth of democracy and must only be restricted for serious reasons. 

National security, on the other hand, refers to actions taken by a government to protect the nation’s peace, stability, and survival. In Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria5The Supreme Court explained that individual rights can be restricted where the security of the state is threatened. This shows that while expression is vital, it cannot be used to endanger collective peace. Therefore, a balance must always be struck, one that respects constitutional freedoms while also safeguarding national security and public order. 

4.0. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS AND LEGAL LIMITS 

The Nigerian Constitution serves as the foundation for the protection and limitation of freedom of expression. Section 39(1) guarantees every citizen the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. This broad protection shows that the framers of the Constitution recognized free speech as essential to democracy and good governance. 

However, the same Constitution, under Section 45(1), provides that certain rights may be restricted in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health.  This clause ensures that individual liberty does not threaten collective security. The courts have been consistent in affirming that rights are not absolute and can be limited under lawful and justifiable conditions. 

In Director of State Security Service v. Olisa Agbakoba,6the Supreme Court emphasized that restrictions on fundamental rights must be authorized by law and must not be arbitrary. Similarly, in Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria,7the Court held that where national security is at stake, individual liberty may be curtailed, since “the security of the state is supreme.” 

Nonetheless, in Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP),8the Court of Appeal clarified that national security cannot be used as an excuse to suppress lawful expression or peaceful assembly. The court warned that such misuse of power undermines democracy and the rule of law. 

These judicial decisions show that the Constitution demands a careful balance between protecting citizens’ voices and maintaining national stability. Any restriction must, therefore, be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the threat being addressed. 

5.0. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE REALITY OF RESTRICTIONS  In Nigeria today, the clash between freedom of expression and national security has become a familiar story. On paper, every citizen has the right to speak freely and criticize those in power. In reality, however, this right is sometimes treated as a privilege that can be taken away when the government feels threatened. 

 One major example was the Twitter ban of 2021. The government suspended the social media platform after it was used to question and criticize certain national issues. Officials defended the ban as a step to protect national security, but for many Nigerians, it felt like punishment for speaking out. Groups like the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) challenged the decision, arguing that it violated both the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.9 

In the same way, journalists, bloggers, and activists have been arrested under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 for posting or sharing opinions that authorities considered false or offensive.10 The Act was created to fight cyber threats, but its 

vague terms have often been used to silence criticism rather than protect citizens. The judiciary has, at times, tried to restore balance. In Femi Falana v. Attorney-General of the Federation,11the court warned that national security must never become an excuse for oppression. It emphasized that freedom of expression is not granted by government generosity but secured by constitutional guarantee. 

These realities remind us that true security is not achieved by silencing voices but by listening to them. When people are free to speak without fear, democracy grows stronger, and national peace becomes easier to protect. 

6.0. STRIKING A CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE 

Balancing freedom of expression with national security remains a difficult task in Nigeria. While Section 39 of the Constitution guarantees free speech, Section 45 allows restrictions in the interest of public order and security. The real challenge is ensuring these limits are reasonable and not abused. 

In Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria,12 The Supreme Court held that rights could be restricted if public peace or national safety is at risk. Yet, it warned that “national security” must not become an excuse to silence citizens. Similarly, in Ndukauba v. Kolomo,13 The Court noted that government actions must stay within constitutional boundaries. 

As Justice Niki Tobi once said, “democracy thrives not on fear but on free discussion.”14 True security lies not in suppressing voices but in allowing people to speak freely while maintaining order. 

7.0. CONCLUSION 

Freedom of expression and national security are both vital to the survival of any democracy. However, when one is overemphasized at the expense of the other, justice and peace are at risk. Nigeria’s Constitution recognizes this tension by granting citizens the right to speak freely while allowing certain limits in the interest of security. The real problem lies not in the law itself, but in how the law is applied. 

Courts must continue to serve as the guardians of this balance, ensuring that “national security” is not used as a blanket excuse to silence dissenting voices. Citizens should also exercise their freedom responsibly, avoiding speech that promotes hate or violence.  Ultimately, protecting both freedom and security is not contradictory; it is complementary. A truly secure nation is one where people are free to express themselves without fear, and a truly free nation is one where safety is guaranteed for all.

REFERENCE(S): 

Statutes and Legislation 

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended). 
• Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015. 

Case laws 

• Arthur Nwankwo v. The State, (1985) 6 N.C.L.R. 228 (C.A.). 
• Director of State Security Service v. Agbakoba, (1999) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 595) 314 (S.C.).
• Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2007) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1048) 320 (S.C.).
• Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), (2008) 12 W.R.N. 65 (C.A.). 
• Ndukauba v. Kolomo, (2005) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 915) 411 (C.A.). 
• Fawehinmi v. State, (2001) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 727) 415 (S.C.). 
• Femi Falana v. Attorney-General of the Federation, (2008) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1119) 388 (H.C.). 

International Instruments 

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, art. 19 (Dec. 10, 1948). 
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, L.F.N. 2004, art. 9. 
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 19.

1 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), § 39(1).

2Id. § 45(1). 

3 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), §§ 39(1), 45(1).

4 Arthur Nwankwo v. The State, (1985) 6 N.C.L.R. 228 (C.A.). 

5 Dokubo-Asari v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, (2007) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1048) 320 (S.C.). 

6 Director of S.S.S. v. Agbakoba, (1999) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 595) 314 (S.C.).

7 Dokubo-Asari v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, (2007) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1048) 320 (S.C.). 

8Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), (2008) 12 W.R.N. 65 (C.A.).

9 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, art. 9. 

10 Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (Nigeria), §§ 24–26. 

11 Femi Falana v. Attorney-General of the Federation, (2008) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1119) 388 (H.C.).

12 Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2007) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1048) 320 (S.C.).

13 Ndukauba v. Kolomo, (2005) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 915) 411 (C.A.). 

14 Fawehinmi v. State, (2001) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 727) 415 (S.C.).