“Administrative harassment via the NBC, combined with documented physical threats, paints a picture of a government increasingly uncomfortable with scrutiny”.
BY EMMAN USMAN SHEHU
When the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) issued its “Formal Notice” to broadcasters on April 17, 2026, the language was couched in the bland bureaucratese of regulatory housekeeping. The commission cited a “sustained increase” in breaches of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code’s 6th Edition, particularly in news, current affairs, and political programming. Anchors and presenters, it warned, must cease expressing “personal opinions as facts,” “bullying or intimidating” guests, denying “fair hearing” to opposing views, or compromising “neutrality.” Any such infraction would now constitute a Class B breach, carrying the threat of sanctions. Compliance, the notice stressed, was “mandatory, not discretionary”—especially with the 2027 general elections on the horizon.
To the casual reader, it might sound like a routine call for professionalism. To Nigeria’s journalists, civil society groups, and democracy advocates, it is something far more ominous: a sophisticated administrative muzzle aimed at the heart of the country’s free press. Truly, this is not mere regulation—it is illiberal democracy in action, hollowing out the Fourth Estate from within while preserving the outward forms of electoral competition.
The NBC’s directive zeroes in on the interview format—the very arena where Nigerian broadcast journalism has historically done its most vital work. Challenging a politician’s claim, pressing for evidence, or offering contextual analysis that contradicts the official line could now be branded “unprofessional” or “intimidating.” Presenters are effectively ordered to remain neutral stenographers rather than active interrogators. The commission’s insistence on “mandatory fair hearing” within the same broadcast—while superficially balanced—risks turning every critical segment into a platform for state rebuttal, diluting investigative impact and forcing self-censorship to avoid fines, license threats, or worse.
This is prior restraint by another name. Media houses, already operating under the shadow of potential license revocation or crippling penalties, will err on the side of caution. The chilling effect is immediate and intentional. As Amnesty International stated in its swift condemnation on April 19, the notice represents “an unlawful attempt to stifle press freedom and silence journalists,” pressuring organisations into self-censorship. Nigeria’s broadcast media, the group noted, plays a “vital role in enabling citizens to freely seek, debate, receive and impart information.”
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) went further, issuing a 48-hour ultimatum to President Bola Tinubu on April 18 to direct the withdrawal of what it called an “unlawful” notice based on vague, overbroad grounds. “The NBC’s notice represents a dangerous attempt to impose prior censorship on the media and suppress legitimate journalistic expression,” SERAP’s letter declared, warning that it undermines the public’s right to diverse viewpoints ahead of 2027.
This move fits neatly into a global pattern authoritarian-leaning leaders have refined over the past decade. Rather than risk a messy legislative battle or public backlash, governments turn to ostensibly independent regulators to issue “notices” that carry the force of law but bypass scrutiny. Vague phrases like “compromising neutrality,” “intimidation,” or even broader code prohibitions against content that could “subvert authority” or threaten “indivisibility” become weapons of selective enforcement. The state decides after the fact what crosses the line.
Nigeria has seen this before. Under previous administrations, the NBC had levied fines—sometimes N500,000 per station—for alleged violations, though courts have occasionally curbed its fining powers. The pattern of physical attacks and harassment has persisted: the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development has verified at least 231 incidents against the press since Tinubu took office in 2023, including assaults during the 2024 #EndBadGovernance protests where security forces targeted journalists covering public discontent. Reporters Without Borders’ 2025 World Press Freedom Index placed Nigeria at 122nd out of 180 countries, down 10 spots, labeling conditions “problematic” amid rising political interference and economic pressures on newsrooms.
The timing is no coincidence. In February 2026, Tinubu signed amendments to the Electoral Act into law—changes critics argued could weaken safeguards around result transmission and transparency. As the 2027 polls approach, controlling the narrative becomes paramount. Economic reforms—fuel subsidy removal, naira floatation—have triggered inflation, hardship, and protests. When citizens turn to television and radio for unfiltered analysis of policy failures or electoral irregularities, the state’s instinct, apparently, is to ensure the questions stay polite.
Democracy’s strength lies not just in elections but in the institutions that constrain power between them. The free press is the ultimate safety valve: it channels public grievance peacefully, holds leaders accountable, and prevents the echo chamber that breeds detachment from reality. Cripple it, and frustrations find other outlets—often less peaceful ones.
Nigeria’s media has a proud legacy as a bulwark against authoritarianism. During military rule, independent outlets risked everything to expose abuses. Post-1999 democratic transition, vibrant debate helped consolidate civilian rule. Yet under Tinubu, the space is deliberately narrowing. Administrative harassment via the NBC, combined with documented physical threats, paints a picture of a government increasingly uncomfortable with scrutiny.
Critics from the opposition, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, have condemned the directive as an assault on media independence. Even Tinubu’s own aide pushed back against such criticism, but the broader civil society chorus—SERAP, Amnesty, Media Rights Agenda—remains resolute: this is not about professionalism; it is about power.
Nigeria stands at a perilous juncture. The country’s size, economic weight, and democratic experiment make it a bellwether for the continent. If the Tinubu administration succeeds in transforming broadcasters into compliant mouthpieces, other leaders may take note. Illiberal democracy—elections without real contestation, institutions stripped of independence—has spread from Budapest to Ankara to parts of Africa. Nigeria, with its boisterous press and activist judiciary, was supposed to be different.
Yet the guardrails are cracking. The NBC notice, layered atop declining press freedom rankings and a history of impunity for attacks on journalists, signals a deeper erosion. A democracy that fears an anchor’s follow-up question or an analyst’s context is one unsure of its legitimacy.
The path forward is clear. Civil society must demand the notice’s immediate withdrawal. Broadcasters should resist self-censorship where possible, supported by international observers and legal challenges. Nigerians—voters, civil groups, the diaspora—must recognise that a muted press does not serve any administration well in the long run; it isolates leaders from uncomfortable truths until crises erupt.
Without a doubt, the media has always been democracy’s safety valve. Seal it off, and the pressure builds elsewhere. President Tinubu’s administration faces a choice: lean into the regulatory overreach that risks turning Nigeria into another case study in democratic backsliding, or recommit to the robust, messy, essential freedoms that have sustained the nation’s Fourth Republic. The 2027 elections will test more than ballots—they will reveal whether the substance of democracy still matches its form, and the real motives of Tinubu.
The watchdogs are barking. The question is whether the state will listen—or silence them entirely.
…Dr Shehu is an Abuja-based writer, activist and educator.
