The groups say the proposed law could give government sweeping powers over foreign-funded organisations and weaken media freedom ahead of 2027

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project and the Nigerian Guild of Editors have mounted a fresh challenge to the proposed Foreign Aid Bill, urging the National Assembly to withdraw the legislation and warning that it could place civil society, independent media and other civic actors under excessive government control.

Also read: SERAP sues NNPCL over alleged ₦5.9bn rebranding expenditure

The organisations made the appeal in a joint open letter dated August 29, 2026, addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas.

Signed by SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare and NGE General Secretary Onuoha Ukeh, the letter described the Foreign Aid (Regulation, Coordination, Transparency and Disclosure of Foreign Aid, Grants and Donations) Bill, 2026, also known as SB.1034, as “unnecessary, unlawful, unconstitutional and a threat to civic space, media freedom and democratic participation in Nigeria”.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Ibrahim Hassan Dankwambo of the Peoples Democratic Party, Gombe North, has already passed its second reading in the Senate and is now facing growing resistance from civil society and media organisations. (placng.org)

At the centre of the dispute is a proposal to establish a Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission with powers covering recipients of foreign grants, donations and technical assistance.

SERAP and the NGE argue that the proposed framework goes well beyond financial transparency and could create an extensive system of governmental oversight over organisations that depend on foreign assistance for legitimate public-interest work.

The groups said the proposed commission would have powers to register recipients, demand disclosures, inspect records, investigate activities, monitor foreign assistance, issue directives and impose sanctions.

They are particularly concerned about provisions that could expose non-compliant organisations to a minimum fine of ₦20 million, as well as suspension or revocation of operating licences.

Reports on the bill also indicate that its scope extends beyond NGOs to government institutions, private organisations and other recipients of foreign assistance. (punchng.com)

SERAP and the NGE questioned why another regulatory body was necessary when several existing institutions already have responsibilities relating to financial reporting, corporate registration, taxation, anti-corruption enforcement and money laundering.

They pointed to the Corporate Affairs Commission, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Special Control Unit against Money Laundering, Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and Nigeria Revenue Service as examples of agencies already operating within those areas.

“Nothing in the Bill demonstrates that these institutions are unable to perform their statutory responsibilities or that any regulatory gap justifies creating another regulator with overlapping and potentially intrusive powers,” the organisations argued.

The controversy is therefore not simply about whether foreign funding should be transparent.

There is broad agreement across the debate that organisations receiving public or foreign money should be accountable for how those resources are used.

The sharper disagreement concerns how far government oversight should extend and whether the proposed mechanism would create unnecessary control over independent organisations.

The Nigeria Network of NGOs has similarly argued that the bill could duplicate existing regulatory structures, noting that SB.1034 would require a broad range of foreign-aid recipients to register, provide information and comply with oversight by the proposed commission. (nnngo.org)

SERAP and the NGE also raised concerns over the language of the proposed legislation.

They argued that concepts including “foreign aid”, “national priorities” and “public interest” require clearer definitions and objective legal standards if they are to form the basis of regulatory decisions.

In their view, vague provisions could create room for inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement, particularly where an organisation’s activities are politically sensitive or critical of government policy.

The organisations said this would be particularly troubling for independent media organisations and civil society groups whose work can depend on international grants.

Foreign funding supports a range of activities in Nigeria, including investigative journalism, fact-checking, journalist safety initiatives, humanitarian programmes, human rights advocacy and other public-interest projects.

“The Bill could have serious consequences for independent journalism and civil society organisations,” the groups warned, pointing to the sector’s reliance on foreign grants for such activities.

Their concern comes at a politically sensitive time.

Nigeria is moving towards the 2027 general elections, and SERAP and the NGE argued that additional restrictions on organisations and independent media could further narrow an already contested civic space.

The organisations warned that placing independent media and civil society groups under an additional executive-controlled regulatory regime could increase government leverage over their operations and encourage self-censorship.

“Subjecting independent media and other civil society organisations and private entities to an additional executive-controlled regulatory regime would increase governmental leverage over their operations, place pressure on independence and create conditions conducive to self-censorship,” they said.

The groups based their objections partly on constitutional protections for freedom of expression and association.

They cited Sections 39 and 40 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which protect freedom of expression and freedom of association, as well as provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The criticism is not the first opposition the bill has encountered.

In August, the Nigerian Human Rights Defenders Network, Partnership for Justice, Front Line Defenders, West African Human Rights Defenders Network and Protection International also called for the bill’s withdrawal, arguing that its proposed powers could restrict the work of human rights defenders and civic organisations. (frontlinedefenders.org)

Those organisations said the proposed commission would have powers to register, inspect, audit, sanction and suspend organisations receiving foreign grants, donations or technical assistance.

The growing resistance has placed the National Assembly under increasing pressure to balance two legitimate objectives: ensuring transparency around foreign financial flows while protecting the independence of organisations that operate outside government.

For lawmakers, the debate is therefore likely to extend beyond the question of regulation itself to the safeguards that would accompany any new framework.

SERAP and the NGE have called for the bill to be immediately rejected and withdrawn, while urging the National Assembly to focus instead on legislation that strengthens transparency, accountability, media freedom and civic participation without creating excessive government control.

They also warned that they would not stop at public advocacy if the legislation becomes law in its current form.

“Should the Bill be passed into law despite the serious constitutional and human rights concerns raised, SERAP and NGE will consider taking all appropriate legal action in the public interest,” they said.

The warning sets up a potentially significant legal and political confrontation if lawmakers proceed with the proposal.

For now, the bill remains part of the legislative process rather than an enacted law.

Its passage at second reading means it has cleared an important parliamentary stage, but further consideration and scrutiny remain before it could become binding legislation. (placng.org)

The central question now is whether the National Assembly can develop a framework that delivers meaningful accountability for foreign assistance without creating a regulatory architecture that critics fear could be used to silence independent voices.

As Nigeria approaches another politically consequential election cycle, that distinction could prove crucial.