Stakeholders Decry Surveillance Tech Diversion From Tackling Insecurity To Silencing Civil Actors

Stakeholders have raised alarms over the diversion of multimillion-dollar surveillance technologies intended to fight terrorism, banditry, and insecurity from criminals to civic actors, journalists, activists, and governance critics.

Speaking during the release of a report by civil rights advocacy group, Spaces for Change (S4C) titled, “Victims Speak: Techniques, Patterns, and Impacts of Targeted Surveillance in Nigeria,” on Thursday, the stakeholders, accused security agencies of diverting surveillance technologies intended to tackle insecurity toward monitoring and intimidating journalists, activists and other civic actors.

According to the report, Nigeria’s security threats, including terrorism, organised crime, religious intolerance, kidnapping, farmer-herder clashes, communal conflicts and separatist agitations, have prompted the government to procure sophisticated surveillance technologies from countries such as Israel, China, Italy, the United States and the Netherlands.

“These tools include IMSI catchers like Stingray, spyware, biometric systems, open-source intelligence platforms, remote device extraction tools, drones and social media monitoring software. While these capabilities can aid legitimate law enforcement and intelligence work, they also introduce significant risks when deployed without oversight,” the report stated.

S4C said the cases documented in the report showed that security agencies deployed various tools, including phone tracking and hacking technologies, to monitor the activities of 18 Nigerians, among them seven journalists.

Executive director of S4C, Victoria Ibezim‑Ohaeri, said the report, showed that surveillance victims suffered harms that went beyond digital intrusion.

“We are aware that surveillance is necessary, considering the massive security gaps in the country,” she said.

“So this infrastructure should be deployed to address real issues and not small issues about who is accusing who, criticising who, condemning who, or writing what. It seems that that’s where the appetite and the energy are going, and we are saying that this energy is being misdirected.”

Ibezim‑Ohaeri urged authorities to “use the technologies to safeguard the country, protect citizens, minimise insecurity and make everybody feel much safer in the country,” and called for stronger import controls, post‑shipment monitoring, judicial engagement and measures to support victims.

She noted that many of the cases documented by S4C had been brought to court and were ultimately dismissed, which she said indicated that “the surveillance operations were often aimed at intimidation rather than addressing genuine security threats.”
Ibezim‑Ohaeri said S4C’s goal in publishing the report was to protect civic space ahead of the 2027 elections. “Let citizens continue to enjoy and exercise the freedom to speak, the freedom to associate, the freedom to assemble, without fear of consequences,” she said.

A retired judge, Nkemdilim Izuako, who spoke at the report launch, said the legal system must do more to protect citizens’ rights in the face of technological intrusion. She said lawyers, bar associations and judicial officers “should be trained” to understand the technical and human impacts of surveillance and to handle related matters in court.

Justice Izuako, said the judiciary must be part of the solution, stressing that “if you don’t actually sit down and talk with people and get them to understand and see what others have gone through…you will never imagine the extent of trauma.”

She added that courts should not allow Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPs) to serve as tools of intimidation and should identify and throw out such cases early.

Justice Izuako, said victims could pursue civil actions for compensation and urged judges to “dispose of these matters with a sense of responsibility and as speedily as possible so that the people who are supposed to be compensated will be able to gain something from that compensation.”

The report adopted a victim-centred approach, building on prior studies like The Security Playbook of Digital Authoritarianism and Proliferation of Dual-Use Surveillance Technologies.
It compiled testimonies from 18 vulnerable individuals, lawyers, bloggers, NGO workers, campaigners, and community organisers, gathered during S4C’s SpyStop Lab programme.

S4C said its SpyStop Lab, which provided device forensics, secure‑communications training and psychosocial support to participants, documented several modus operandi used to target civic actors.

The report recommended that policymakers, security agencies, civil society and donors prioritise: enforcing robust import controls that cover software and dual‑use tools; introducing transparent procurement and independent post‑shipment verification; training judges and legal practitioners on digital evidence; creating clear remedies and compensation for wrongful surveillance; and investing in digital sovereignty to reduce dependence on external suppliers.