This story by Pamela Ephraim originally appeared on Global Voices on September 25, 2025
Nigeria’s whistleblower policy, introduced on December 21, 2016, was designed as a quick fix to expose systemic corruption. It promised whistleblowers between 2.5 and 5 percent of recovered looted public funds. However, while the policy incentivizes disclosures, it does not guarantee protection.
Instead, whistleblowers often face surveillance, dismissal, or even death threats. Multiple attempts to pass a whistleblower protection bill over the years have stalled in Nigeria’s National Assembly, leaving whistleblowers legally vulnerable.
On September 18, 2025, Federal High Court judges and civil society advocates debated on Nigeria’s fragile whistleblowing framework at a national interactive forum convened by the African Centre for Media & Information Literacy (AFRICMIL) for federal high court judges, in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city.
Harry Ogwuche, the Director of Economic and Social Rights at Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), shared during the debate:
While seeking the support of judges in the advocacy for a whistleblower protection law in Nigeria, Chido Onumah, Coordinator of AFRICMIL, said:
At the forum, persecuted whistleblower Yisa Usman shared how he was pressured, intimidated, and sidelined from his profession after blowing the whistle on his company. Usman is a chartered accountant who worked in the finance and accounts department, but after exposing corruption, he was redeployed to the ICT department, transferred to different states, and subsequently fired. He said:
Nigeria’s Constitution and several statutes already contain protections that could be extended to whistleblowers. These include: Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. Section 6(4)(c) of the National Human Rights Commission Act prohibits harassment of individuals who cooperate with the Commission. Anti-corruption laws like the EFCC Act and ICPC Act provide limited safeguards. The Freedom of Information Act protects disclosures made in good faith.
In practice, these fragmented provisions are inconsistently applied, and without a unified protection law, whistleblowers continue to face retaliation.
Nigeria’s situation contrasts sharply with that of its regional neighbors. Ghana’s Whistleblower Act (Act 720) and South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act provide dedicated mechanisms.
Vladimir Radomirović, a Serbian journalist and co-founder of Pištaljka, an organization based in Belgrade that provides free legal aid and protection to whistleblowers, shared his experiences of building alliances with the judiciary to strengthen whistleblower protection in Serbia. He said:
AFRICMIL and its partners urged the Nigerian legislature to urgently enact the whistleblower protection law, one that guarantees anonymity, provides penalties against retaliation, and establishes an independent body to oversee cases.
Whistleblowers and civil society organizations appealed to judges to embrace a proactive role in safeguarding whistleblowers. They called for progressive adjudication that interprets existing laws in the spirit of transparency and protection for defenders; expedited hearings to ensure justice is not delayed and therefore denied; the awarding of exemplary damages against retaliators to serve as a deterrent; and above all, the protection of anonymity in court procedures. These recommendations, they argued, are vital if the judiciary is to strengthen trust, uphold justice, and ensure that whistleblowing truly serves as a tool for accountability in Nigeria.
(NS)
Suggested Reading:
