Nigeria

Information uploaded as at September 2026

AT A GLANCE

In Nigeria, AI use in the justice sector is growing, especially in law enforcement. Police in several states have used facial recognition, CCTV, licence-plate recognition, and predictive tools for suspect identification and hotspot analysis, while Awarri’s voice-enabled tool (announced June 2026) is intended to help officers record statements and manage cases in Nigerian languages, starting in Abuja and Lagos. The EFCC uses Cellebrite’s digital-forensics tools in financial-crime investigations and is developing AI-supported blockchain analysis for cryptocurrency tracing. Courts are focused mainly on digitalisation, using the Nigerian Case Management System (launched July 2026) and Justice AI. Defence lawyers may use private tools such as Judy.legal and Case Radar, and victims may use JusticePadi.ai offering rights information and legal referrals via WhatsApp. AI training remains optional and institution-led rather than mandatory, with programmes run by the Nigeria Police Force, UNODC, UNESCO, the National Judicial Institute, state judiciaries, and the Nigerian Bar Association.

Nigeria has no dedicated AI statute in force. The 2024 National Artificial Intelligence Strategy is a non-binding policy framework for ethical AI development, while the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and its 2025 Directive form the principal binding framework, granting rights against solely automated decisions and imposing privacy-by-design duties. The National Digital Economy and E-Governance Bill, which would introduce risk-based AI regulation with human oversight and impact assessments, had passed the Senate by July 2026 but remained unenacted. Existing rules on fabricated evidence, electronic-record admissibility, forgery, privacy, non-discrimination, and fair hearing constrain AI use indirectly but do not address AI-generated evidence or deepfakes specifically. The Nigerian Bar Association’s 2024 guidelines emphasise confidentiality, competence, bias testing, and human oversight.

USE

Law enforcement

As at September 2026, AI use by Nigerian law enforcement is minimal, though developing.

Operational support

In June 2026, Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy unveiled an AI-powered, voice-enabled tool for capturing statements and managing cases in local languages, developed by Awarri, a Nigerian AI company specialising in indigenous language technologies. The platform is intended to make investigative processes more efficient, accurate, and fast by allowing law enforcement officers to record statements and handle case management using Nigerian languages alongside AI capabilities. The tool is reportedly expected to understand and communicate in several Nigerian languages, including Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, and Nigerian Pidgin. The tool is set to launch first in Abuja and Lagos, with a nationwide rollout to follow.

Predictive analytics

Nigerian law enforcement agencies have reportedly made use of predictive policing tools, designed to identify suspicious patterns and predict potential hotspots based on surveillance data (see below). However, as at September 2026, limited publicly available data is available on the precise tools used.

Data review and analysis

Several Nigerian states reportedly make use of facial recognition and licence plate recognition through CCTV in public spaces and cameras on emergency response vehicles.

The Nigerian Government has proposed deploying drones equipped with AI-enabled sensors, alongside establishing a National Border Data Fusion and Intelligence Centre, to address 1,497 identified illegal and unmanned border routes exploited by criminal networks. The plan is reportedly to equip these drones with thermal cameras, radar, LiDAR, and other intelligence sensors to provide continuous surveillance.

Since 2018, the Nigerian Government has been developing a monitoring tool to scan social media content, identify individuals and content raising security concerns, and curtail the spread of false information, though it is unclear to what extent the tool relies on AI-assisted functionalities.

Prosecutors

Data review and analysis

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (‘EFCC’), Nigeria’s principal anti-corruption and financial crimes agency, has been developing tools to assist with prosecution:

• Cellebrite is a software deployed by the EFCC’s Digital Forensic Section, which sits within the Forensics and Crime Laboratory Services Directorate. Cellebrite software is used to access, collect, and preserve data from devices recovered in economic and financial crime investigations. The section uses the company’s technology to deliver evidence to investigators more quickly, presenting it in graphically driven reports designed to be readily understood by prosecutors, juries, and judges. The EFCC’s Digital Forensic Section also draws on advanced analytics capabilities within the Cellebrite platform to connect disparate pieces of evidence, including data that manual examination alone cannot surface, in order to reconstruct the full narrative of complex investigations. More broadly, the wider Cellebrite product suite incorporates AI-driven analytics, initially to help investigators search for evidence faster, and later expanded into language classification to analyse communication patterns for indicators of grooming behaviour or money laundering.
• Blockchain analysis technology has also been developed by the EFCC to trace illicit cryptocurrency transactions. The EFCC has announced plans to deploy AI systems capable of supporting this task, ideally co-developed within Nigeria. Such tools aim to help the institution to automate pattern recognition in large datasets and predict potential fraud based on past trends. However, as at September 2026, there is no record that the EFCC has acquired such AI tools.

Courts

The Chief Justice of Nigeria has publicly supported digital tools for legal research and case management, while cautioning that AI must ‘augment, not replace, judicial wisdom’ and urging strong oversight. As at September 2026, Nigerian courts are focusing on broader digitalisation, including the establishment of electronic case management and filing systems. Thus, the Nigerian Case Management System (‘NCMS’) was launched by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 1 July 2026, with the aim of building a fully digitised and technology-driven court system. Other Nigerian courts, including the Federal High Court and the Lagos State Court, have developed their own e-filing and case management systems, which are expected to integrate with the NCMS while continuing to support their respective court operations.

Case management

Intron, a Nigerian AI start-up, has launched Justice AI, an Africa-focused Voice AI solution to assist with legal proceedings. The system offers automatic live transcription and document preparation, allowing judges to dictate rulings, case notes, and legal arguments. Justice AI is powered by Intron’s proprietary Sahara v2 model, which was trained on more than 50,000 hours of audio from 40,000 speakers spanning 30 countries, supports 57 languages (including 24 new additions such as Hausa, Swahili, Yoruba, and Zulu) and recognises more than 500 African English accents. It was developed using recordings captured in real-world environments such as clinics, courts, call centres, and busy streets, to better reflect how Africans actually speak. The tool has reportedly been deployed in Ogun State Judiciary and the Federal High Court in Damaturu, Yobe State.

Legal research, analysis and drafting support

LawPavilion’s PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT tools are AI-powered legal research assistants available to both lawyers and judges in Nigeria. LawPavilionGPT, the underlying technology, is an AI system designed to understand, interpret, and provide insights into Nigerian law with speed and accuracy. It draws on a large language model, built on natural language processing and machine learning technologies, with a particular focus on Nigerian legal research resources and advanced semantic tools. The system is trained on a database spanning over 60 years of judicial authorities, statutory authorities, regulations, and legal texts.

The LawPavilion Prime software features a dedicated interface split into two main categories: ‘For Lawyers’ and ‘For Judges’, each with its own set of listed features. LawPavilion For Judges was unveiled in late 2025. It supports legal research while also easing analysis and, to a degree, decision-making. The platform provides judges with comprehensive summaries of case materials, intelligent assessment and evaluation of evidence, suggested issues for determination, legal opinions supported by verifiable Nigerian cases, and reasoning and justifications linked to precedent. It can also generate draft judgments by analysing counsel’s final submissions, pleadings, witness testimonies, and evidence.

During the All Nigeria Judges Conference in November 2025, LawPavilion presented these judicial AI assistant tools but there is no reporting as to how widely, if at all, these tools have been used by judges.

Defence

Legal research, analysis and drafting support

As at September 2026, there are no legal AI tools specifically offered to defence counsel in Nigeria. However, the following legal AI tools remain available to all lawyers in Nigeria, and may therefore be used by defence counsel:

• The LawPavilion Prime software ‘For Lawyers’ is intended to help Nigerian lawyers conduct faster, more accurate, and more efficient legal research, by providing them with access to comprehensive case law, legal precedents, statutes, legal updates, and judicial insights. Its capabilities include answering complex legal questions, legal drafting, and an AI document review tool that reads, interprets, and interacts with legal documents. Lawyers receive free subscriptions of one to seven years post-call who have paid their Bar practising fees, and discounted rates on a graduating scale for more senior practitioners.
• Judy.legal is a legal research and discovery platform offering AI-powered tools for lawyers, law students, and legal professionals across Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya. Founded in February 2018, the platform has grown to serve over 50,000 users across these three jurisdictions, providing access to more than 77,000 cases and 2,700 statutes. Its AI-powered research tools include BriefBot, which generates AI-produced case summaries, and an AI assistant that answers complex legal questions with citations drawn from the platform’s database of African case law and legislation.
• Case Radar, founded in 2024, is a generative AI platform designed to connect everyday people with the legal system while helping lawyers, particularly those early in their careers, scale their practice. The platform’s AI has been trained on Nigerian law to generate real-time legal interpretations, and by July 2025 had accumulated over 1,400 users and more than 10,000 court documents that were not previously available online. Its tools include document summarisation and analysis, as well as a feature connecting users with lawyers. To guard against the risk of AI hallucination, Case Radar is designed to decline prompts where the relevant information does not exist in its database.

Victims

Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (‘AJCA’), any person, including a victim, may make a criminal complaint alleging an offence has been committed (ACJA, section 88). However, the Attorney-General may discontinue the case at any stage before judgment (ACJA, section 107(1)). President Bola Tinubu is reportedly seeking to replace AJCA with a new Act, although as at September 2026 AJCA remains in place.

Case management

JusticePadi.ai is an AI chatbot operating through WhatsApp, designed to help ordinary people understand their rights and options when facing unfair treatment, arrest, or detention. It aims to address the common needs of groups such as protesters, journalists, digital creators, and women and girls facing sexual violence or online abuse. Where users need further assistance, the tool tries to connect them with human lawyers.

TRAINING

As at September 2026, there is no mandatory nor nationwide training in AI. There is, nonetheless, a variety of optional training available across every level of the judicial system.

Training for law enforcement

The Nigeria Police Force has delivered two AI training programmes:

1. The first was the AI Foundation Course, held in August 2025 in Abuja. It brought together forty-five senior instructors from Police Training Colleges and Schools across Nigeria for a five-day programme. The overall aim was to begin positioning the Nigeria Police Force at the forefront of ethical, data-driven smart policing for efficient and effective public safety. The programme was delivered with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Nigeria, as part of the Supporting Police Accountability and Transformation (SPAAT) project, funded by the German Federal Foreign Office.
2. Second, the ‘AI-POL Leadership Dialogue Workshop on Advancing Innovation, Governance, and the Responsible Use of AI in Law Enforcement’ concluded on 3 June 2026, also in Abuja. The workshop brought together senior law enforcement officers, technology experts, and international partners. Participants examined practical applications of AI in security operations, considered the challenges associated with its adoption, and drew on global experience to develop workable strategies for the Nigeria Police Force.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in partnership with Nigeria’s Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), concluded a two-week intensive training programme aimed at equipping Nigeria’s frontline cybercrime investigators with advanced skills to tackle digital crime. The programme brought together twenty-five officers from Nigeria’s leading law enforcement agencies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP), the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), among others. The training covered a broad range of topics, including ‘AI and futuristic policing’ and ‘deepfake detection’, alongside subjects such as deep web investigations, mobile and network forensics, business email compromise, crypto-jacking, ransomware-as-a-service, evidence preservation, and expert witness testimony. UNODC also partnered with the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre, to train police officers on the fight against cybercrime. Amongst others, the topics included digital evidence handling, investigation techniques, and victim-centred response strategies.

Training for judges and court staff

There have also been several domestic and international workshops aimed at educating the judiciary.

In partnership with the Smart Africa Digital Academy, UNESCO delivered an online training programme that brought together judges, prosecutors, policymakers, IT experts, and parliamentarians from thirteen African countries, including Nigeria, in December 2024. The programme was structured around four key modules: an introduction to AI and the rule of law (covering foundational principles and cybersecurity); adopting AI in judicial systems (showcasing practical applications and real-world case studies); and two further modules addressing the ethical and governance dimensions of AI in justice.

Separately, in November 2024, UNESCO convened a three-day workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, for twenty-five judges and judicial professionals from African nations, including Nigeria. The training focused on AI, the rule of law, freedom of expression, journalist safety, and access to information in alignment with international human rights standards.

On 14 May 2026, the National Judicial Institute, the statutory body responsible for organising and conducting continuing judicial education and training for all categories of judicial officers and their supporting staff, held a two-day workshop in collaboration with the Nigerian Communications Commission for justices and judges on legal issues in telecommunications, in Ikeja, Lagos, under the theme ‘Adjudicating in the Digital Era: The Judiciary’s Imperative in Connectivity, Infrastructure Protection and Online Safety’. The workshop brought together Supreme Court justices, judges of federal and state High Courts, regulators, and industry stakeholders, and AI was among the topics discussed.

In June 2026, the Taraba State Judiciary delivered a dedicated AI training programme for its judges. The two-day programme was aimed at High Court judges and focused on the application of AI in judicial processes. Its purpose was to equip judges ‘with the knowledge and skills needed to understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI’, while also cautioning that AI adoption must be ‘guided by the principles of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, accountability and fairness’.

In July 2026, the International Centre for Migration Policy Development organised a specialised four-day training on cybercrime, AI, and digital evidence for members of the Joint Case Team on Cybercrime and designated Federal High Court judges in Lagos. More than forty participants attended, including investigators, prosecutors, analysts, forensic experts, and six designated Federal High Court judges. Judges were included on the basis that cybercrime investigations ultimately end up in the courtroom, and they must therefore be prepared to deal with such cases.

The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies also convened a workshop in July 2026 on emerging trends in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, attended by representatives of the judiciary, Ministries of Justice, law enforcement agencies, the Nigerian Correctional Service, Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committees, civil society organisations, and development partners. The workshop examined whether technological innovations such as digital evidence, electronic case management, AI, and virtual proceedings are being effectively integrated into criminal justice processes.

Training for lawyers

The Nigerian Bar Association co-organised a masterclass entitled ‘AI for Nigerian Lawyers’ on 21 March 2026. The event was intended to show Nigerian lawyers ‘how context engineering turns AI into a precision legal tool while protecting judgment, confidentiality and relevance to Nigerian Law’.

REGULATION

AI Regulations

National AI Strategy (2024)

As at September 2026, although no dedicated AI-specific legislation has been enacted, Nigeria has developed a National AI Strategy. This is a non-binding policy document made public in August 2024 and issued by the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy (‘FMCIDE’), through the National Information Technology Development Agency (‘NITDA’) and the National Centre for AI and Robotics (‘NCAIR’). The Strategy sets out Nigeria’s vision, principles, and five pillars to guide national AI development, adoption, and governance. It sets a five-year vision (2025–2029) for Nigeria to become a global leader in ethical and inclusive AI innovation.

The Strategy is organised around three overarching goals: economic growth and competitiveness, social development and inclusion, and technological advancement and leadership. It is also structured around five operational pillars.

1. Pillar 1 (AI Infrastructure) focuses on building foundational AI infrastructure including high-performance computing centres and clean energy-powered AI clusters.
2. Pillar 2 (AI Ecosystem) addresses building a world-class AI ecosystem through partnerships, talent development, and innovation hubs.
3. Pillar 3 (AI Adoption) aims at accelerating AI adoption across agriculture, healthcare, education, finance, and public services.
4. Pillar 4 (Responsible and Ethical AI) ensures responsible and ethical AI through a dedicated AI Ethics Expert Group and a national ethics assessment framework.
5. Pillar 5 (AI Governance) develops a robust governance framework, including an independent AI Governance Regulatory Body and a National AI Risk Management Framework covering economic, ethical, societal, and technical risks.

The Strategy proposes a multi-layered governance architecture: a National AI Steering Committee chaired by FMCIDE, a National AI Ethics Commission, and a technical secretariat hosted by NITDA/NCAIR. It sets measurable targets, including equipping at least 70% of Nigeria’s young workforce (aged 16–35, including 50% women) with AI-related skills, and reducing unemployment by 5%.

Guidelines for practitioners

As at September 2026, Nigeria has not formally adopted the UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals (2025). However, the 2024 Guidelines for the Use of AI in the Legal Profession, by the Nigerian Bar Association, detail the responsibilities of Nigerian lawyers in an AI-specific context.

Guidelines for the Use of AI in the Legal Profession (2024)

On 28 August 2024, the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal Practice (‘NBA-SLP’) published Guidelines for the Use of AI in the Legal Profession in Nigeria. The Guidelines aim to give legal practitioners a ‘thorough understanding of AI and its responsible application within the unique context of the Nigerian legal landscape’, and provide a reference point to lawyers

The Guidelines observe that tools that can search, summarise, draft and predict are increasingly part of legal practice, and Nigerian lawyers need guidance to use them confidently, competently and ethically. The Guidelines emphasise that AI offers significant opportunities to improve efficiency. If used effectively, machine learning systems and generative models can ‘free up lawyers’ time for more complex legal matters’. However, lawyers must use AI as ‘a complementary tool, not as a replacement for their critical thinking and legal expertise’.

The Guidelines refer to some of the key ethical challenges AI poses for Nigerian legal practitioners in the context of their professional responsibilities, articulated in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 (‘RPC’):

• Client Confidentiality (RPC Rule 19);
• Competence and Diligence (RPC Rule 16);
• Duty of Care (RPC Rule 14);
• Candour and Truthfulness (RPC Rule 14 (2) and 15(3)(g));
• Independence of Judgement (RPC Rule 24(2));
• Duty to Uphold the Law and Avoid Misconduct (RPC Rule 15); and
• Conflicts of Interest (RPC Rule 17).

In light of the risks posed by AI systems with regards to bias and fairness, the Guidelines recommend that practitioners should ‘carefully curate training data to ensure it is representative and free from bias’, and ‘regularly assess AI systems for potential bias using fairness testing methodologies’.

The Guidelines provide practitioners with indicative criteria to adhere to when selecting AI tools, with relevant considerations to include ‘alignment with legal needs’, ‘data security and privacy compliance’, ‘scalability and integration’, ‘transparency and explainability’ and ‘vendor reputation and support’. To appropriately manage potential risks, firms are encouraged to identify and assess potential data security and bias risks, audit outputs, conduct scenario exercises and ensure insurance and oversight processes reflect AI‑related exposures.

According to the Guidelines, practitioners should build AI literacy across all levels, pairing skill development with an understanding of the technology’s limitations and risks. Further, the Guidelines encourage constructive collaboration with developers so that tools reflect Nigerian law, culture, languages and practice realities.

Rules for Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (2007)

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners provide that exculpatory evidence should be disclosed by the prosecution (Rule 37 (6)), and may accordingly be relied upon if deepfake evidence is produced in Nigerian criminal proceedings.

Criminal procedure rules

The Nigerian Criminal Code (1960)

The Nigerian Criminal Code penalises misleading the court and fabricating evidence (Sections 117–120). As a result, any deepfake evidence submitted in court proceedings would most likely fall foul of these provisions. There is, however, no requirement to label AI-generated content, which, combined with limited access to forensic technology in Nigeria, might hinder parties’ and court’s ability to detect falsification of evidence.

Evidence Act (2011)

The Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) establishes standards for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings brought in Nigeria. The Nigerian courts determine admissibility primarily based on relevancy (Section 211(1)).

An electronic record is admissible as evidence if it meets the following criteria in Section 84(2) (as amended):

1. The document or electronic records were produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
2. During the period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the activities;
3. Throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if it was out of operation during that period, it was such as not to affect the production of the document or electronic records or accuracy of their contents; and
4. The information contained in the statement or electronic records reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

Additionally, under Section 84(4), the document or electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate of compliance. Subsequent case law has clarified that an oral testimony may serve as an alternative method of authenticating a document or electronic record for the purpose of the admissibility assessment.

While this law predates AI and does not refer to it expressly, the provisions on digital evidence apply to outputs generated or processed by AI systems when introduced in criminal proceedings.

While it may be possible to satisfy the statutory authentication requirements for AI-generated content by submitting a certificate of compliance or providing witness testimony concerning its authenticity, commentators have pointed out that it would be challenging for AI-generated content to satisfy the admissibility requirements due to limitations associated with traceability and transparency of the creation process. The traditional authentication methods and admissibility requirements are seen as outdated and inadequate to tackle the inherent characteristics of AI-generated content, as opposed to the traditional electronic content they were designed for.

Data protection legislation

Nigeria Data Protection Act (2023)

The key piece of legislation regulating AI is the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (‘NDPA 2023’), supplemented by implementation directives. The NDPA 2023 establishes the National Data Protection Commission (‘NDPC’) and sets out lawful bases for, and principles governing, data processing in Nigeria, which also apply to use of personal data by AI systems. Notably, NDPA 2023 specifically addresses automated decision-making: Article 37 gives data subjects the ‘right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing of personal data, including profiling, which produces legal or similar significant effects concerning the data subject’.

Section 37 further details the exceptions, including where automated decision-making was ‘authorised by a written law, which establishes suitable measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms, and the interests of the data subject’. When utilising automated decision-making, the data controller is required to put in place measures to safeguard the ‘fundamental rights, freedoms and interests’ of the person who is a subject of the automated decision-making process. In particular, the data controller must ensure that the following rights are protected: 1) to ‘obtain human intervention on the part of the data controller’; 2) to ‘express the data subject’s point of view’; and 3) to‘contest the [automated] decision’.

While the NDPA 2023 allows for carve-outs from certain obligations under Part V (such as establishing data subject’s consent to processing, or provision of information to the data subject) in cases where ‘a competent authority [carries out data processing] for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection, prosecution, or adjudication of a criminal offence or the execution of a criminal penalty, in accordance with any applicable law’ or data processing is ‘necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims, whether in court proceedings, or in an administrative or out-of-court procedure’, the rights of the data subject under Part VI, and particularly section 37, remain unaffected. In any event, these carve-outs continue to be subject to the constitutional rights and freedoms detailed below.

General Application and Implementation Directive (2025)

In March 2025, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission issued its General Application and Implementation Directive, which became effective from September of that year. This Directive operationalises the NDPA 2023 and sets out detailed compliance requirements for data controllers and processors, including registration, compliance audits, data protection officers, breach notification, data protection impact assessments, cross-border transfers, and categories of data controllers and data processors of major importance. The Directive establishes compliance requirements for organisations deploying emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain.

Relevant provisions include Article 43, which addresses use of emerging technologies with specific reference to AI. In particular, processing data with the use of AI must take into account the following objectives:

1. The ‘right of a data subject not to be subject to a decision solely based on automated processes or algorithms’;
2. The ‘right to be forgotten’, bearing in mind that synthetic data or tokenisation of personal data ‘may not be amenable to this right’;
3. Safeguards for ‘the processing of sensitive personal data’ and ‘child rights and other vulnerable groups’;
4. The ‘regulation of cross-border data flows’; and
5. The ‘privacy by design and by default’.

Article 43 further provides for steps that the data controller or processor must take to ensure compliance.

Article 44 addresses the balance between the use of emerging technologies, such as AI, to pursue development objectives and the rights of the data subjects, emphasizing the obligation of data controllers and processors to refrain from using technology which is not capable of ‘operat[ing] in compliance with international human rights law or that pose undue risks to the enjoyment of human rights.’

Many uses of AI in the legal and justice space will qualify as high-risk from a privacy standpoint and will therefore require a Data Privacy Impact Assessment under the NDPA 2023, which may ultimately lead to engagement in a consultation process with the NDPC before proceeding and the imposition of safeguard measures. As at September 2026, this framework has not been tested by the Nigerian courts with respect to deepfakes or other AI-generated misinformation. 

Cybersecurity laws

Cybercrimes Act (2015)

The Cybercrimes Act 2015 criminalises computer-related forgery (Section 13), identity theft and impersonation (Section 22), and computer-related fraud (Section 14), all of which might come into play for specific instances of deepfake use. This framework has not been tested by the Nigerian courts with respect to deepfakes or other AI-generated misinformation.

Human rights

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999)

Human rights law in Nigeria is governed by the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). This document enshrines the following rights that are relevant in the context of AI:

• Privacy – Section 37 of the Constitution provides that ‘[t]he privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.’ Nigerian case law has interpreted this right broadly. In Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors v National Identity Management Commission (2021), the Court of Appeal held that the constitutional right to privacy includes the protection of personal data and personal information. This provides a potential basis for privacy-based challenges to AI systems that involve the collection, processing or profiling of personal data, including in surveillance or identity-management contexts. However, Nigerian case law has not yet directly considered how section 37 applies to AI technologies specifically.
• Non-discrimination – Section 42 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds including place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic, or linguistic association. AI systems that are trained based on incomplete or inaccurate datasets, or that produce materially different outcomes for protected groups, could therefore raise equality concerns under Nigerian constitutional principles. In practice, this suggests that AI governance measures in Nigeria should address bias risk, including through appropriate data governance, testing and review mechanisms.
• Fair Trial – Section 36(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal. This right has been upheld in Garba v University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550. Although Nigerian courts have not yet applied this provision to AI-assisted adjudication, the use of AI in judicial or law-enforcement contexts may raise fair-hearing issues where, for example: algorithmic reasoning is not explainable; litigants cannot challenge automated recommendations; judges excessively defer to AI outputs; or parties cannot interrogate the reliability of algorithmic evidence.

Nigeria is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’). Relevant rights include: the right to a fair trial, to judicial independence, and to express one’s views and have them considered in legal proceedings (Article 14 ICCPR); the right to non-discrimination (Articles 4 and 14 ICCPR); and the right to privacy and information self-determination and data protection (Article 17 ICCPR).

Nigeria has also ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains relevant provisions, including:

• Article 40 – Juvenile justice: requires that a child alleged, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, reinforcing respect for the human rights of others, and taking into account the child’s age and the desirability of reintegration.
• Article 16 – Right to privacy: provides that no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation, and that the child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference.

Outlook

National Digital Economy and E-Governance Bill (2026)

As at September 2026, the Nigerian National Assembly is in the process of passing AI-specific legislation, currently referred to as the National Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill. The Bill, proposed in 2014 by the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, was originally scheduled to be passed in March 2026. However, as at September 2026, it has not yet been enacted. In early July 2026, Chairman of the Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, Senator Shuaib Afolabi Salisu, commented on the progress of the legislation, stressing that ‘the National Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill had completed legislative processes in the Senate and is expected to receive presidential assent.’

The legislation aims to create ‘a regulatory framework for the development, implementation, and responsible use of [AI] systems and other emerging technologies,’ notably the first of its kind in Africa. It addresses electronic transactions, communications, and records; mandates digital transformation across public institutions; and provides for the regulation of emerging technologies, including AI. The legislation contains specific rules targeting the development, implementation, and use of AI, with a clear focus on ethics, transparency and human oversight. The Bill adopts a risk-based model for AI regulation and is expected to grant powers to classify AI systems by risk, mandate algorithmic transparency, and accredit AI auditors. It also creates a dedicated regulatory agency responsible for oversight, regulation, and enforcement in relation to AI and other emerging technologies.

The framework explicitly mandates that the use of AI is ‘fair, inclusive, and non-discriminatory’ and must be ultimately and meaningfully overseen by a human. Moreover, the AI systems must be ‘transparent, explainable, intelligible, and traceable, supported by documentation and technical measures that enable understanding of its functioning, rationale, and decision-making processes’ and must incorporate ‘mechanisms for due process, including contestability of decisions, and provide access to effective remedies and redress for harms caused.’ It also introduces specific regulatory requirements for sensitive sectors (for example, in finance, public administration, biometric surveillance), which will be required to register and undergo an AI impact assessment, in addition to strict oversight and licensing requirements.

While the draft bill does not specifically address the use of AI in the legal and justice sector, its rules will apply to this sector in equal measure. Given the sensitivity of the legal and justice issues, it is expected that a higher regulatory standard will be applied to the use of AI in this sector, although detailed guidance and rules will become available only after the legislation has been enacted.

Other potential developments include:

• In March 2026, the National Human Rights Commission received renewed calls for a comprehensive review of the National Human Rights Commission Act, approximately 31 years after the Commission’s establishment, to reposition the body to perform optimally in the 21st century and to consider emerging human rights issues. However, as at September 2026, no specific AI provisions have been proposed.
• In May 2025, the Senate of the National Assembly proposed a Bill for the creation of a National AI Commission to oversee AI development across Nigeria. Unlike existing regulators such as NITDA and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission, the proposed Commission would function as a centralised, dedicated oversight body operating independently of these institutions. As at August 2026, the full text has not been made public.
• The NITDA has been working on the adoption of a Draft Code of Practice for AIe. The Code is intended to provide sector-agnostic standards, risk-based obligations, and governance processes for the development, deployment, and use of AI systems in Nigeria. The Code is expected to set baseline requirements for AI providers around transparency, risk assessment, and human oversight, alongside technical specifications for conformity assessments and bias auditing.
• Since February 2025, the Senate of the National Assembly has also been discussing the Digital Sovereignty, AI Governance, and Fair Compensation Bill. The Bill targets the extraction and monetisation of Nigerian data by foreign companies, addressing both digital sovereignty and the fair compensation of Nigerians whose data is used for commercial purposes by foreign technology firms. As at September 2026, the full text has not been made public.

Deepfakes

There have also been calls in the jurisdiction to amend existing regulation to address the risk of deepfake evidence in court proceedings. Legal practitioners and commentators have highlighted the risks of AI-generated evidence in court proceedings, referring to cases from other jurisdictions and calling for legal reform.

Nigerian legal practitioners expect that a question of AI-generated evidence is likely to come up and be tested by the courts in the near future given the increasingly widespread use of AI tools in the country. The key concern raised relates to the inadequacy of the current admissibility and authentication framework for handling the characteristics of AI-generated content, which translates into an inability of Nigerian courts to trace and verify the origins and the content of the documents presented as evidence. Commentators have also highlighted that digital forensics is not widely available in Nigeria and may be further limited by financial barriers for law enforcement, the judiciary, as well as private practitioners, further limiting the parties’ ability to verify and demonstrate the authenticity of digital evidence, increasing the risk of deepfakes going undetected and unchallenged.

The Nigerian Bar Association’s Guidelines for the Use of AI in the Legal Profession (see above) is an example of an early attempt to introduce dedicated guardrails for AI use in the legal and justice system. Some of the reform measures suggested by commentators include:

• Updating Section 84 of the Evidence Act to reflect the characteristics of AI tools given the increased risk to evidence integrity;
• Implementing a more robust and dedicated methodology for validating authenticity and reliability of AI-generated evidence;
• Enacting legal provisions addressing AI-generated evidence admissibility and oversight;
• Criminalising malicious deepfakes;
• Implementing regulatory frameworks requiring digital platforms and AI developers to implement measures to monitor and mitigate the harm caused by deepfakes, e.g., by implementing ‘transparent mechanisms for deepfake detection and removal’, labelling of AI-generated content, and processes to report and remove deepfakes, as well as mechanisms to trace AI-generated content to its origin;
• Implementing ethical frameworks around AI deployment in legal and judicial settings with a focus on upholding privacy, fairness, and non-discrimination.

In addition, the NDPC joined a number of global data protection regulators in March 2026 in endorsing new standards to address these risks and expressing commitment to international collaboration to address them through targeted regulatory action.

CASES

As at September 2026, there are no reported rulings by Nigerian courts on the use or misuse of AI.