Constitutionality Of Niger State Policy Requiring Approval Of Sermons And Licensing Of Preachers

By Adeniji Kazeem, SAN

Introduction and Background

In September 2025, the Governor of Niger State, His Excellency, Mohammed Umar Bago announced a directive requiring clerics and religious Preachers within the State, to submit their sermons to the Government for vetting and approval prior to delivery. According to the press release, the policy is designed to curb incitement and preaching that is “anti-people and anti-Government”, threatening peace and security in the State. Furthermore, the directive requires preachers to obtain licenses before they can lawfully minister in the State, with unlicensed preaching deemed unlawful. The Governor also stated that agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services (DSS) would be involved in ensuring compliance with this policy.

This directive has generated widespread concern among religious leaders, legal practitioners, and civil society groups. At its core, the policy purports to subject the exercise of religion and expression to prior governmental control. By introducing a licensing regime and mandating the prior approval of sermons, the government effectively asserts the power to determine what can and cannot be preached within Niger State.
The purpose of this opinion paper is to examine whether the Niger State Government possesses the constitutional or legal authority to implement such a directive.

Issues for Determination

The issues that arise for consideration are as follows:
Whether the Niger State directive infringes on the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
(This goes to the heart of whether requiring Preachers to submit sermons for vetting and obtain licenses amounts to an unlawful restriction of constitutionally guaranteed liberties).
Whether the directive can be justified under constitutional limitations. (Relating to public order, public safety, morality, or the rights of others as provided under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended)(“the Constitution”). The Government may argue that its directive is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, in the interest of peace and security. The goal here, is to evaluate whether the restrictions imposed meet the constitutional test of necessity, proportionality, and legality.

Applicable Laws

The Constitution

The Constitution is the grundnorm of the Nigerian legal system. By virtue of Section 1(1) it is supreme, and its provisions have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the country. Section 1(3) further provides that if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Consequently, any directive, policy, or legislation issued by the Government must derive its legitimacy from constitutional provisions.

In the instant case, several provisions of the Constitution such as Sections 38, 39, 45 and 10, are directly impacted by the Niger State Government’s directive. These provisions collectively provide the constitutional framework, for assessing whether the directive is valid and enforceable. The subsequent analysis in this opinion will therefore examine their import, their interplay, and the implications of their combined interpretation in determining the legality of the Niger State Government’s policy.

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act

Nigeria has ratified and domesticated the African Charter, which forms part of Nigerian law under Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion under Article 8, and freedom of expression under Article 9, subject only to lawful restrictions necessary for maintaining law and order. These provisions closely mirror Sections 38 and 39 of the Constitution.

The Charter further underscores that restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. By reinforcing constitutional protections through binding international standards, it provides an additional legal framework against which State actions, including the Niger State Government’s directive, may be tested.

Relevant Judicial Precedents

Judicial precedents serve as an authoritative guide to the interpretation of constitutional provisions and other laws. They provide clarity on the scope and application of fundamental rights, and determine whether measures like licensing preachers and vetting sermons can be reconciled with constitutional guarantees, or whether they amount to unconstitutional intrusions on fundamental freedoms.
Analysis of the Directive under the Nigerian Constitutional and Legal Framework
The core of this legal opinion rests on a detailed examination of Nigeria’s constitutional framework and applicable international human rights instruments.
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
Section 38(1) of the Constitution
This provision recognises not only the internal freedom to hold religious beliefs, but also the external freedom to manifest and propagate such belief. The term “manifest” in the provision includes acts of worship, teaching, and observance, all of which are fundamental to the practice of religion. Preaching, teaching, and delivering sermons fall squarely within this protective ambit.

Impact of Sermon Vetting and License Requirement

The Niger State Government’s policy requiring sermons to be submitted for approval before they can be delivered, subverts the heart of democracy as enshrined in the constitutional right to religious freedom. Sermons are an integral part of religious worship and teaching. Prior approval means that the government, not the cleric or congregation, ultimately decides what may or may not be taught in a religious setting. This undermines the right to “manifest and propagate” religion in worship and teaching.

The Supreme Court in Lagos State Govt & Ors v Abdulkareem & Ors (2022) LPELR-58517(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (Pp 42 – 44 Paras C – C) further emphasised this, where it was held that:
“…The plain or ordinary grammatical meaning of Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is that every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest and spread his religion or belief in the manner in which he worships, teaches, disseminates or observes the rules or customs of his religion. Sub-sections (2) and (3) further affirm the protection of these rights”.

Similarly, the directive requiring clerics to obtain licenses before preaching extends the subversion even further, and effectively converts a constitutional right into a State-granted privilege. The natural position of the Constitution is that religious practice is free and open; licensing creates a prerequisite that conditions religious manifestation upon prior State approval. By doing so, the directive interferes with the essence of Section 38 of the Constitution, which guarantees unfettered freedom to worship and teach.

Licensing also introduces a risk of arbitrariness. If licenses can be granted or denied on the basis of criteria set by the State, the government assumes the power to determine who may lawfully preach. This undermines the autonomy of religious communities and contradicts the neutrality mandated by Section 10, which prohibits the government from adopting or aligning with any religion.

The combined effect of licensing preachers and vetting sermons is that, the State subverts to itself the power to control religious life.

This constitutes a direct infringement of Section 38, and any attempt to justify such interference must therefore, pass the stringent test under Section 45.

Freedom of Expression (Section 39 CFRN 1999)
Section 39(1) states:
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”

Sermons are not only acts of worship, but also a form of communication in which religious leaders impart ideas and information to their congregants. They therefore, fall within the dual protection of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Effect of Prior Approval on Expression

The requirement to submit sermons for approval, amounts to a system of prior restraint or censorship. Freedom of expression contemplates that individuals are free to communicate their ideas, subject only to lawful restrictions imposed on public interest. Requiring prior approval reverses this presumption, by prohibiting speech until authorised. Such a regime risks manipulating expression because clerics may even self-censor to avoid conflict with the State, thereby impoverishing public discourse.

Licensing as a Restriction on Expression
Similarly, licensing Preachers restricts expression by granting the State the power to determine who may speak. Expression protected under Section 39 does not depend on the State’s endorsement of the speaker. By licensing Preachers, the directive seeks to filter voices and determine whose message is permissible, thereby narrowing the scope of constitutionally guaranteed discourse.

In the case of Shaibu & Ors v Utomwen & Ors (2022) LPELR-58237(CA) per Biobele Abraham Georgewill, JCA (Pp 43 – 44 Paras F – E), the court expounded on the essence of Section 39 where it held that:
“…The real essence of this right therefore, is to guarantee to each citizen the right within the purview of the law to express himself freely without unjustifiable interference”.

The directive, therefore, infringes not only on religious freedom, but also on freedom of expression. It imposes prior restraint, suppresses diversity of voices, and inadvertently silences legitimate discourse. Unless demonstrably justified under Section 45, the directive is unconstitutional on this basis.

Constitutional Limitations in Section 45
Section 45(1) of the Constitution establishes the framework under which rights under Sections 38 and 39 may be restricted. The conditions are:

The restriction must be contained in a “law”; b) must pursue one of the listed legitimate aims; c) must be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society,” which imports the requirement of necessity and proportionality.

Legality Requirement

A crucial preliminary question, is whether the Niger State directive is a “law” within the meaning of Section 45. A directive or policy pronouncement, unless backed by enabling legislation of the State House of Assembly, does not qualify as law. Section 45 does not authorise rights to be curtailed by executive fiat; it requires a law duly enacted through constitutional procedure. If the directive lacks statutory basis, it outrightly fails the requirement of legality. [In fact, it is the law that the directive of a State Governor which is not codified in a statute, amounts to a breach of fundamental human right. See Okafor v Lagos State Govt & Anor (2016) LPELR-41066(CA), per Georgewill, JCA, Pp. 44-50, paras. B-B; and per Ogakwu, JCA, Pp. 18-20, paras. F-G].

Legitimate Aim

The Government has invoked concerns of public order, safety, and prevention of hate speech. These fall within the recognised grounds under Section 45. Thus, the legitimacy of the aim, is not in doubt. The central question, is whether the measures adopted are necessary and proportionate to achieve that aim.

It is firmly believed that considering the body of extant laws as of today, any religious leader that incites the people against the Government can be dealt with under the relevant provisions of criminal law applicable in the State.

Necessity and Proportionality

For a restriction to be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society,” it must be narrowly tailored to address a pressing social need and must impair rights no more than necessary. The measures in question; mandatory sermon vetting and licensing, seem overly broad. They subject all clerics and all sermons to State scrutiny, regardless of whether there is any risk to public order. Less restrictive alternatives exist such as criminal sanctions against actual incitement to violence, civil remedies, and targeted prohibition orders.

A blanket system of prior approval and licensing fails the proportionality test, because it burdens lawful exercise far more than is necessary to address unlawful conduct.

Even if the directive were embodied in a statute, it would still fall short of the requirements in Section 45, because the measures are disproportionate and unnecessary, and therefore, not “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Nigeria has ratified and domesticated the African Charter through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. Article 8 guarantees freedom of conscience, profession and free practice of religion, subject only to law and order. Article 9 protects the right to receive and disseminate information, and express opinions.

The Charter permits restrictions, only to the extent necessary for maintaining law and order. The requirement of necessity mirrors the proportionality principle, under Section 45. Blanket measures such as prior approval and licensing, are inconsistent with this standard.
The provisions of African Charter form part of Nigerian law, since it is domesticated.

Together, the Constitution and the Charter reinforce the conclusion that, the directive is inconsistent with Nigeria’s constitutional and legal framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Niger State Government’s directive, despite its stated noble intentions, fundamentally misinterprets the balance between State security and individual rights. It places the State, in the dangerous position of being the arbiter of religious truth and acceptable expression. This directive is a direct assault, on the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and expression.

A legal challenge would likely find that the Government’s approach is not “demonstrably justifiable in a democratic society”, and that its actions are a dangerous overreach of power, setting a perilous precedent for the erosion of fundamental freedoms in Nigeria.

Adeniji Kazeem SAN, FCArb, former Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State