By Ken Harries, Esq.

There is a point at which political contestation ceases to be an argument about ideas and becomes an assault on the very boundaries that make civil society possible. That point is reached when a private telephone conversation is allegedly recorded, extracted from its original context and released into the public domain as political ammunition.

The latest controversy surrounding an audio recording purported to be a telephone conversation between Senator Godswill Akpabio and Sandra C. Duru, a.k.a. Professor Mgbeke, therefore deserves to be examined beyond the personalities involved. It raises a much larger question: What happens to a society when private conversations become raw material for public propaganda?

Recent reports indicate that Sandra Duru released a nine-minute audio recording on social media and presented portions of it as a private conversation involving the Senate President. Yet, significantly, the recording has not been independently authenticated, and questions remain about the identity of the voices, the circumstances in which the conversation was recorded, and whether the excerpts constitute the complete conversation. Those uncertainties are not minor technicalities; they are at the heart of responsible public communication.

PRIVACY IS NOT A POLITICAL LUXURY

Nigeria’s Constitution is unequivocal in recognising privacy as a fundamental right. Section 37 guarantees and protects the privacy of citizens, including their homes, correspondence and telephone conversations. That constitutional safeguard does not disappear because the individuals involved are politicians, public officials, activists or controversial personalities. Indeed, public office should never be interpreted as a wholesale surrender of personal privacy.

The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 reinforces this principle by establishing a legal framework for protecting personal information and regulating its processing. Among its stated objectives are the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, the safeguarding of personal data, and the requirement that personal data be processed in a fair, lawful and accountable manner.

The central question, therefore, is not whether an audio recording can generate political excitement; it obviously can. The question is whether private communication can be captured, processed, edited, reproduced and disseminated for political purposes without lawful justification, proper authorisation or regard for the rights of the people whose voices and personal information are involved. That is a much more serious question.

THE CYBER DIMENSION CANNOT BE IGNORED

The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, as amended in 2024, also contains provisions concerning unlawful interception of non-public computer communications and judicially authorised interception of electronic communications. The legislation defines interception broadly enough to include listening to or recording communication data in specified circumstances. But legal precision matters, particularly when criminal liability is being discussed.

It would be premature for commentators to declare, without establishing the facts, that the mere existence or publication of this particular audio automatically constitutes a criminal offence under the Cybercrimes Act. If, however, the evidence establishes that a private electronic communication was intercepted or obtained without lawful authority, the circumstances could raise serious questions under the applicable constitutional, data-protection and cybercrime frameworks. That is precisely why an independent investigation matters: the law should determine the legality, not social media.

PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT A BLANK CHEQUE

There is another important distinction that the Nigerian public must begin to make. A matter involving a public official may be of public interest without every private conversation involving that official becoming public property. Public interest is not the same thing as public curiosity.

A genuine public-interest disclosure ordinarily requires more than the ability to attract clicks, outrage or political engagement. It requires consideration of authenticity, context, provenance, relevance and the legitimate rights of the people involved. A fragment of an alleged private conversation, detached from the circumstances in which it occurred and presented to millions of people without independent authentication, can easily become something very different from responsible whistleblowing.

It can become narrative engineering, particularly when selected material is used to encourage the public towards a predetermined interpretation. When such narrative engineering is repeatedly used to shape public perception, it begins to resemble propaganda rather than public accountability.

THE MORAL QUESTION

There is also a moral dimension that no statute can completely capture. Politics is already a theatre of suspicion, rivalry and competing narratives. If every private conversation is potentially a future weapon, trust disappears from public life. People stop speaking candidly, officials become afraid of legitimate conversations, and citizens become unwilling to engage public figures.

Political communication then gradually degenerates into a marketplace where the most sensational fragment—not necessarily the most truthful account—commands the greatest attention. This is where the conduct surrounding the dissemination of private conversations raises profound ethical questions.

A society that normalises the conversion of private conversations into political weapons risks producing a culture in which nothing is private, context is disposable and reputation is collateral damage. That is not democratic accountability; it is the erosion of the ethical architecture upon which democratic accountability depends.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE “MERCHANT OF PROPAGANDA” MODEL

There is a growing phenomenon in digital politics in which controversy itself becomes a political commodity. The objective is no longer necessarily to establish facts, but to generate a continuous stream of allegations, recordings, screenshots, insinuations and counter-allegations until the public becomes emotionally exhausted and truth becomes indistinguishable from repetition.

The danger is particularly acute when the communicator becomes both the source of the allegation and the narrator of the evidence. That model creates an obvious credibility problem because the public is effectively being asked to accept not merely the allegation but also the interpretation supplied by the person disseminating it.

That is why independent verification is indispensable. A recording should be authenticated, its provenance established, its full context examined and any editing disclosed. The circumstances of its acquisition should also be investigated. Where there are allegations of unlawful interception or misuse of personal data, the appropriate regulatory and law-enforcement authorities should be allowed to do their work.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HAS RESPONSIBILITIES

Freedom of expression is indispensable to democracy, but so is the right to privacy. These principles should not be presented as enemies. Responsible journalism, legitimate whistleblowing and public-interest disclosure have their place, but none of them should become convenient labels for every unauthorised exposure of private communications.

The democratic answer to disputed conduct is evidence, investigation and due process—not digital vigilantism. If the recording is authentic and contains evidence of wrongdoing, the proper response is to submit the evidence to the appropriate institutions and allow the facts to be tested. If it is unauthorised, manipulated, selectively edited or misleadingly presented, those facts should also be established through proper investigation. Either way, the truth deserves a process more rigorous than a Facebook post.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN AKPABIO

The most important lesson from this episode should not be about Senator Godswill Akpabio alone; it should be about the Nigeria we are creating. Today, it may be a conversation involving a Senate President. Tomorrow, it could be a judge, journalist, businessman, civil servant, academic, clergy member or ordinary citizen.

If the principle becomes that anyone who possesses a private recording is entitled to publish it whenever politically convenient, then privacy ceases to be a right and becomes merely a temporary privilege enjoyed by those who have not yet been recorded. That is a dangerous trend with implications extending far beyond the personalities involved in the present controversy.

The constitutional guarantee of privacy cannot be selectively defended, data protection cannot become a slogan deployed only when convenient, and cybercrime legislation cannot be invoked selectively. Political communication cannot be allowed to become a free-for-all in which reputations are tried and convicted on social media before evidence is examined.

LET THE LAW SPEAK

There is, therefore, a compelling case for the relevant authorities to establish the facts surrounding any purported private telephone recording now circulating. Who made the recording? How was it obtained? Was consent given? Was the communication intercepted? Was it edited? Who first disseminated it, and for what purpose? What personal data were processed? Was there a lawful basis for that processing? And does the dissemination violate any applicable constitutional, statutory or judicial protection? Those are questions for evidence, not conjecture.

There is, however, a broader principle worth defending: private communication should not become political ammunition merely because it can generate attention. A democracy requires trust, evidence, restraint and respect for the law. Public accountability is strengthened, not weakened, when allegations are subjected to verification and established processes rather than determined by the velocity of social-media circulation.

The real moral deficit in contemporary public discourse is not that people disagree. It is that the boundaries between legitimate scrutiny and intrusion can become dangerously blurred when private material is circulated without adequate attention to authenticity, context, provenance and applicable law. Once society becomes indifferent to those boundaries, everyone—not merely public officials—has reason to be concerned about the future of privacy.

• Ken Harries, Esq., is an Abuja-based Development Communication Strategist.

….GMN challenges ruling party to publish register, accuses APC of preparing ground for 2027 rigging

The Grassroots Mobilization Network (GMN), a support group of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has dismissed the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s claim of 12.9 million registered members as “a scam and outright fraud,” challenging the ruling party to publish its membership register for public verification.

The group alleged that the membership figure was fabricated to create a false impression of massive nationwide support for the APC ahead of the 2027 general elections and potentially provide cover for an alleged plan to manipulate the polls.

The allegation was contained in a statement issued on Monday in Abuja by GMN spokesperson, Comrade Peter Emeka.

Emeka said the APC’s claim was an attempt to deceive Nigerians and the international community about the party’s actual strength, arguing that genuine political popularity could not be manufactured through unverified figures.

“The APC’s so-called 12.9 million membership claim is nothing but fraud and a scam by a party that has lost the confidence of Nigerians,” the group said.

“You cannot manufacture members on paper when your government has failed to deliver food, security and jobs to the people.”

GMN further alleged that the figures could be deployed as part of preparations to manipulate the 2027 presidential election.

“The main aim of manufacturing these figures by the desperate APC is to use it to support their impending rigging plans,” Emeka alleged.

“But that plan will fail. Nigerians are ready to foil whatever illegal and dubious plans to frustrate or win the 2027 presidential election.”

The group also accused the APC of attempting to create a misleading picture of its grassroots support base before the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), election observers and the wider international community.

“It’s simply a gimmick to hoodwink Nigerians and the world, but it’s a mockery of our democracy,” Emeka said.

GMN challenged the APC to substantiate its claim by making its membership database available for scrutiny.

“If APC truly has 12.9 million members, let them publish the register, state by state, ward by ward, for Nigerians to verify. The party has not done that because there is nothing to show,” the statement said.

The group argued that political parties should build their support through credible leadership, performance and public trust rather than what it described as propaganda and inflated statistics.

“If APC truly wants to grow its membership, it should first address hunger, insecurity and economic hardship.

“Nigerians will join a party that gives them hope, not one that gives them lies,” it added.

GMN warned that unverified membership figures could further damage public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral system and deepen voter apathy.

“Nigerians are not children. We can see the empty rallies, the deserted party offices and the anger on the streets,” the group said.

“This fake membership claim will only deepen the disconnect between the government and Nigerians.”

The ADC support group accused the APC-led Federal Government of using propaganda to divert attention from what it described as worsening poverty, inflation, unemployment and insecurity.

“Governance is not a census of ghosts. Leadership must be accountable, measurable and people-centred,” GMN declared.

“The APC should stop chasing headlines and face the real problems confronting Nigerians.

GMN called on civil society organisations and the media to demand evidence from the APC and subject its claimed 12.9 million membership figure to independent scrutiny.

The group maintained that Nigerians deserve a credible and transparent electoral process ahead of the 2027 elections, rather than what it described as “manufactured statistics” designed to create a perception of electoral dominance.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has disowned a purported announcement of a Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) under the name “OK Movement”, saying the publication credited to one John Ugulu did not emanate from the party.

The National Chairman of the party, Senator Cleopas Moses, made the position known in a statement on Saturday, stressing that only the party’s leadership has the authority to constitute and announce a Presidential Campaign Council.

Moses said the NDC “dissociates itself in totality” from the purported announcement and urged members of the public and the media to disregard it.

According to him, all candidates contesting under the platform of the NDC must recognise that they are not independent candidates but products of the party and are therefore subject to its authority and discipline.

“The party wishes to state categorically that only the party’s leadership can constitute and announce a Presidential Campaign Council, PCC,” he said.

The NDC chairman warned that no member, candidate or support group should take actions capable of undermining or demarketing the party, adding that no individual or group was authorised to announce, constitute or publish any campaign council, structure or organ in the name of the party without prior approval from the National Working Committee (NWC).

Moses acknowledged the contributions of support groups to the party, saying the NDC appreciated their efforts and remained open to welcoming more groups committed to its mission of “rescuing Nigeria”.

He, however, cautioned support groups against presenting themselves as alternative structures or parallel organs of the party.

The chairman also urged members and support groups with grievances against the party to use established internal channels rather than resorting to public attacks.

“We expect a stop to unnecessary attacks against the party on whose platform our candidates are running. If there are any differences or grievances, support groups and members are advised to refer such matters to the party through appropriate internal channels for resolution rather than resorting to public attacks,” Moses said.

On Ugulu, the NDC chairman said the party had decided to refer him to its appropriate disciplinary organ over what he described as “this act of affront and his excesses during the primary election in Lagos State” as well as his alleged repeated disregard for party authority.

He said the disciplinary action would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the party’s constitution.

Moses reaffirmed the NDC’s commitment to its issue-based campaign, saying the party remained focused on delivering what it described as “a New Nigeria that is Possible.”