THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE 'END BAD GOVERNANCE' PROTESTS IN NIGERIA: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INTERSECTION AMONG FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)

Abstract

This paper critically examines the constitutional validity of the ‘End Bad Governance’ protests in Nigeria, focusing on the intersection between the rights to freedom of assembly, national security concerns, and political accountability as provided under the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The ‘End Bad Governance’ movement, which gained prominence in the wake of widespread discontent with governmental inefficiencies, corruption, and human rights abuses, raises complex legal questions about the balance between civil liberties and state authority in a democratic society. The study begins by analyzing the constitutional provisions that guarantee the right to peaceful assembly and protest, particularly under Sections 39, 40, and 41 of the Nigerian Constitution, which protect the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and movement, respectively. It further explores the historical and legal precedents that have shaped the interpretation of these rights in Nigeria, with a particular focus on judicial decisions that have addressed the limits of these freedoms in the context of national security and public order. The paper then delves into the state's countervailing interest in maintaining national security and public order, as enshrined in Section 45 of the Constitution, which permits the restriction of fundamental rights in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health. It scrutinizes the legal frameworks and legislative instruments, such as the Public Order Act and anti-terrorism laws, that have been invoked by the government to regulate protests and civil unrest. It considers the implications of these protests for Nigeria's democratic governance, particularly in terms of fostering a culture of accountability and the potential for these movements to influence policy and legislative reforms. In conclusion, the paper argues that while the government has a legitimate interest in safeguarding national security and public order, any restrictions on the right to protest must be carefully balanced against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.