Collins Goodness Amarachi & Oluwaferanmi Gabriel Ayorinde
Abstract
The regulation of song releases centers on the intersection of artistic freedom, public order, child protection, broadcasting standards, and the commercial realities of the entertainment industry.[1] Music is a form of artistic expression and therefore it falls within the broad protection accorded to freedom of expression under Nigerian constitutional law.
At the same time, that freedom is not absolute. Nigerian law permits restrictions that are justified by law and directed towards interests such as public safety, public morality and the protection of the rights of others.
The legal difficulty is therefore not whether songs may be regulated, but how far regulation may go before it becomes disproportionate censorship. This article examines the major legal regulations affecting the release and dissemination of songs and musical works, with particular attention to censorship, broadcasting regulation, hate speech and public morality.
It also considers the shift from traditional radio and television regulation to digital distribution through streaming and social-media platforms. The Nigerian framework is assessed against constitutional and African human-rights standards, including the principles of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality.
The article argues that regulation is legitimate where it addresses demonstrable harm through clear and predictable rules, but becomes problematic where unclear concepts such as offensiveness or morality are used to suppress legitimate artistic criticism. A balanced framework should protect children and vulnerable persons, prevent genuine incitement and obscene exploitation, and preserve space for music that challenges social, political and cultural assumptions.
2. Introduction
Music occupies a special place in entertainment law because it combines creativity, speech, commerce and mass communication.[2] A song may be a private artistic work when first created, but its legal character changes in practical terms when it is released to the public through radio, television, concerts, streaming services or social-media platforms.
The same lyric can therefore be treated differently depending on the medium through which it reaches an audience. The regulatory question is especially important in Nigeria, where music is a major part of culture and a powerful means through which artists comment on politics, religion, sexuality, inequality and daily life of Nigerians.
The National Broadcasting Commission has statutory responsibility to regulate broadcasting and to establish standards for broadcast content, while the Constitution protects freedom of expression. This creates a tension between regulatory authority and artistic autonomy.
The tension becomes more complex where government agencies rely on concepts such as decency, morality, cultural values or public interest, because these concepts can be legitimate but are also open to broad interpretation. A sound legal approach must therefore distinguish between regulation of the medium and prohibition of the underlying artistic work.
The State may have stronger grounds to control the time, manner and audience of a broadcast than to prevent a song from existing or being privately accessed. This distinction is increasingly important because digital platforms allow artists to distribute music outside the traditional broadcasting system.
The purpose of this article is to examine the legal boundaries of song regulation and to assess whether the Nigerian framework strikes a fair balance between social interests and creative freedom.[3]
3. Freedom of Expression and Artistic Freedom
Freedom of expression is the constitutional starting point for any discussion of song regulation in Nigeria.[4] Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution provides every person freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
Artistic expression falls naturally within this protection because music communicates ideas, emotions, political views, cultural identity and social criticism. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which forms part of Nigerian law through the African Charter (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, similarly protects the right to express and disseminate opinions within the law.
The African Commission has expressly recognised expression in artistic form as part of the protected field of freedom of expression. International human-rights law also treats cultural and artistic expression as a form of expression protected by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This protection is important because artistic works often communicate indirectly, through metaphor, satire, exaggeration and symbolism. A song should not lose protection merely because its message is unpopular or offensive to some listeners.
The Human Rights Committee has emphasised that Article 19 can protect expression that is deeply offensive, subject to lawful restrictions. Nigerian courts and regulators must therefore approach song restrictions with a presumption in favour of expression rather than a presumption that controversial music is unlawful.
However, freedom of expression isn’t unlimited.[5] Section 45 of the Constitution recognises circumstances in which laws may restrict the rights protected by sections 37 to 41, including measures reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
The legal task is consequently one of balancing, rather than choosing between absolute freedom and absolute regulation.
4. Censorship of Musical Content
Censorship can be defined broadly to governmental or institutional control that prevents, limits or conditions the broadcast of musical/artistic content because of its subject matter or form.[6] In music, censorship may occur through an outright ban, refusal of broadcast, compulsory editing, removal of lyrics, age restrictions or sanctions against broadcasters that transmit prohibited material.
Nigerian practice demonstrates that censorship can occur even where the artist remains legally free to publish the song independently. The National Broadcasting Commission has historically sanctioned stations for airing songs considered vulgar or indecent, and it has encouraged artists to prepare versions of songs suitable for broadcast.
This distinction between a commercial or original version and a broadcast version is significant because it can reduce the need for an outright ban on the underlying work. The legal concern arises where a broadcasting restriction is effectively treated as a prohibition on the song itself.
The African Commission has warned against arbitrary interference with expression and has stated that restrictions should be provided by law, pursue a legitimate interest and be necessary in a democratic society. A regulatory body should therefore identify the specific legal rule violated, the harm sought to be prevented and why the chosen sanction is necessary.
Vague disapproval is not enough. For example, a song criticising a government, religious institution or social practice may offend listeners while still remaining protected expression.
By contrast, a song that directly incites violence or contains material that meets a legally recognised obscenity threshold may justify restriction.[7] Censorship is therefore most defensible when it is content-specific, evidence-based, transparent and subject to review.
Two notable examples of censorship in the Nigerian music industry are “Logo Benz” by Lil Kesh and Olamide and “This Is Nigeria” by Falz. “Logo Benz” attracted significant public criticism for its vulgar lyrics and perceived glorification of ritual practices involving women’s underwear, although it was not officially banned. Also, Falz’s “This Is Nigeria,” which criticised corruption, police brutality and other social issues, was subjected to censorship and faced restrictions from the National Broadcasting Commission due to its content.
The development of broadcast versions can be a useful industry practice, but it should not become a disguised method of eliminating lawful artistic expression from the public sphere.
5. Broadcasting Regulation and Song Releases
Broadcasting regulation is one of the statutory means in which Nigeria directly controls the public dissemination of songs.[8] The National Broadcasting Commission Act gives the Commission responsibility for regulating and controlling the broadcasting industry, receiving complaints about broadcast content, establishing a national broadcasting code and setting standards for the content and quality of broadcast material.
The Nigeria Broadcasting Code then translates these statutory responsibilities into operational standards for broadcasters. The Code requires broadcasters to exercise responsibility, good taste and decency in their selection of music and restricts lewd, profane, indecent and vulgar expressions.
It also provides that musical content classified as ‘Not To Be Broadcast’ should not be transmitted. These provisions mean that a song release aimed at radio or television cannot be treated simply as a private transaction between an artist and a listener.
The broadcaster assumes an independent regulatory obligation to ensure that the material is fit for the relevant broadcast environment. The Code also recognises different programming contexts, including children and family viewing or listening periods.
This supports the principle that regulation can focus on audience protection rather than suppressing content entirely. Another important feature is the Code’s local-content requirements, which encourage Nigerian music in broadcasting.
Regulation therefore does not only restrict music; it can also promote Nigerian cultural production and participation in the broadcast industry. The challenge is ensuring that regulatory discretion is exercised consistently and fairly.
Where similar songs receive different treatment, or where vague standards are applied selectively, artists may face uncertainty and self-censorship.[9] A transparent complaints procedure, published reasons for sanctions and meaningful avenues for review are therefore essential to legitimate broadcasting regulation.
6. Obscenity and Indecency Laws
Obscenity regulation is one of the oldest forms of content control affecting artistic works.[10] Under the Nigerian Criminal Code, Chapter 21A deals with obscene publications and defines an article broadly enough to include sound records.
The statutory test asks whether the effect of the material, taken as a whole, tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear it. This is important for music because the legal assessment should not necessarily isolate one offensive word from the entire work.
A song may contain sexual language, violence or strong imagery as part of a wider artistic or social message. The Criminal Code also in section 233F of chapter 21A recognises a public-good defence where publication is justified in the interests of science, literature, art, learning or other objects of general concern.
The existence of this defence shows that Nigerian law does not treat all material capable of causing offence as automatically unlawful. Broadcasting regulation operates alongside, but is distinct from, criminal obscenity law.
A broadcaster may breach the Broadcasting Code even where the material does not necessarily satisfy the criminal-law test for obscenity. This difference is significant because administrative regulation should not be confused with criminal liability.
Indecency is also broader and more flexible than obscenity, which makes it particularly vulnerable to subjective application. The law should therefore differentiate between genuinely harmful sexual exploitation and artistic representations that merely challenge conventional taste.
The protection of children is a stronger justification for restricting explicit music during family programming hours, but adult listeners may reasonably have access to material that would not be suitable for children.[11] Regulation should consequently favour classification, scheduling and edited versions where those measures can achieve the legitimate protective objective without suppressing the entire work.
7. Hate Speech and Harmful Expression in Music
Music can be used to criticise, satirise or condemn a group, but it can also be used to promote hostility against persons because of ethnicity, religion or other protected characteristics. The legal distinction should not be based simply on whether lyrics are insulting or offensive.
International human-rights standards distinguish protected expression from advocacy of hatred that amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.[12] The Rabat Plan of Action recommends a contextual assessment that considers the context of the expression, the speaker, the speaker’s intent, the content and form, the extent of dissemination and the likelihood, including imminence, of harm.
These factors are useful when evaluating songs because lyrics are often metaphorical and may be performed in fictional or dramatic contexts. A literal reading of every lyric can produce unjust restrictions on artistic expression.
Nigerian law also contains criminal and cyber-related rules that may become relevant where online musical content involves threats, harassment, pornography or knowingly false communications intended to cause specified forms of harm.[13] The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention) Amendment Act 2024 narrowed and clarified the wording of section 24(1) compared with the former provision, particularly by removing vague language previously associated with cyberstalking.
Nevertheless, enforcement against harmful expression must still respect constitutional freedom of expression. A song should not be classified as hate speech merely because it discusses race, ethnicity, religion or political conflict.
The stronger case for restriction arises where there is evidence of an intention to mobilise an audience against a protected group and a real likelihood that the expression will contribute to discrimination, hostility or violence. This approach protects vulnerable communities while avoiding the danger of using hate-speech rules to silence controversial music, protest songs or political satire.
8. Public Morality and Community Standards
Public morality is one of the most difficult concepts in the regulation of music because morality is shaped by religion, culture, age, community values and changing social standards.[14] Nigerian constitutional law expressly recognises public morality as a possible basis for restricting certain fundamental rights, but the existence of the concept does not mean that every moral objection automatically justifies censorship.
A democratic and heterogeneous society like Nigeria contains different moral viewpoints, and artistic expression often performs the function of testing those viewpoints. The Nigeria Broadcasting Code reflects this tension by requiring good taste and decency and by directing broadcasters to respect Nigerian cultural and moral values.
These standards are understandable in a medium capable of reaching millions of listeners simultaneously, particularly children. However, they can become problematic when ‘community standards’ are treated as fixed or when the preference of the most vocal group is assumed to represent the whole society.
The better approach is to treat public morality as a legitimate regulatory objective that still requires evidence, clarity and proportionality.[15] A song dealing with sexuality, religion, politics or social rebellion may be morally controversial without creating a concrete public harm.
On the other hand, material involving sexual exploitation of children, serious incitement to violence or deliberately harmful conduct may justify stronger intervention. The distinction between private access and public broadcasting is also important.
A restriction imposed on a radio station may be justified because radio is freely accessible to children, while a complete ban on adult access through lawful digital channels may be excessive. Regulators should therefore consider audience, timing, context and the availability of less restrictive alternatives.
Public morality should protect society without becoming a legal instrument for enforcing one cultural or religious viewpoint upon all artists and listeners.
9. Digital Platforms and the Changing Regulatory Landscape
Digital distribution has changed the practical meaning of a song release.[16] An artist can now publish/release a song globally through streaming platforms, social media and personal websites without first placing the work before a Nigerian radio or television station and this is due to the evolution of the Nigerian Music Industry.
This weakens the effectiveness of a regulatory model designed mainly around broadcasters. The African Commission has recognised that freedom of expression applies to internet-based modes of communication and that new information and communication technologies have transformed the means and modes of expression.
Digital platforms also create private forms of regulation through community guidelines, recommendation systems, age controls, demonetisation and content removal. These private decisions may have consequences comparable to state censorship because a platform can determine whether an artist reaches a large audience.
The Nigerian regulatory framework is therefore increasingly divided between state regulation, broadcast regulation and platform governance. The Cybercrimes Act, including its 2024 amendment, provides one example of how criminal law has been adapted to electronic communications.
However, online music regulation should be careful not to treat every controversial digital expression as a cyber offence.[17] The existence of a digital platform does not remove constitutional rights, although the private contractual terms of platforms may impose additional conditions.
The emerging challenge is therefore to create a coherent approach that distinguishes unlawful content from content that is merely unpopular or commercially unsuitable. Regulators should also recognise that an artist may release an explicit original song online while producing a clean version for radio.
This technological and commercial flexibility supports a less restrictive regulatory model. Instead of trying to eliminate controversial music from the internet, the law should focus on identifiable harms, transparent procedures, age-appropriate access and effective remedies against unlawful takedown or state interference.
10. Balancing Artistic Freedom and Regulation
The central legal question is how to balance artistic freedom with legitimate regulation without allowing either interest to dominate absolutely.[18] The principles of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality provide a useful framework.
First, the restriction should have a clear legal basis so that artists and broadcasters can understand what conduct is prohibited. Secondly, the restriction should pursue a recognised objective such as protecting children, preventing violence or protecting the rights of others.
Thirdly, the measure should be necessary, meaning that the regulator should be able to explain why intervention is required in the particular circumstances. Finally, proportionality requires the regulator to choose a response that does not burden expression more than necessary.
This approach is especially relevant to song releases because there are several regulatory alternatives to a complete ban. An explicit song can be edited, classified, scheduled outside children’s hours or accompanied by appropriate warnings.
A broadcaster can be sanctioned for irresponsible transmission without necessarily prohibiting the artist from publishing the song elsewhere. Similarly, where lyrics are alleged to constitute hate speech, a regulator should assess context, intent, likelihood and the actual risk of harm rather than relying on isolated phrases.
The ECOWAS Court and African human-rights bodies have repeatedly treated arbitrary restrictions on expression as serious rights concerns.[19] A regulator that provides reasons and allows independent review is more likely to act consistently with constitutionalism.
The objective should therefore be responsible access rather than maximum suppression. In my view, the strongest model of entertainment regulation is one that protects audiences while leaving artists substantial space to experiment, criticise and create.
11. The Nigerian Legal and Regulatory Framework
Nigeria does not have one comprehensive statute called an ‘Entertainment Act’ governing every aspect of music and entertainment.[20] Instead, music regulation is drawn from constitutional law, broadcasting legislation, criminal law, intellectual-property legislation, cybercrime legislation and regulatory codes.
The Constitution provides the foundational protection through section 39, while section 45 permits certain justified limitations. The National Broadcasting Commission Act regulates broadcasting institutions and empowers the Commission to establish standards for broadcast content.
The Nigeria Broadcasting Code provides more detailed rules on decency, morality, music selection, local content and sanctions. The Criminal Code provides rules on indecent acts and obscene publications, including a definition that expressly covers sound records.
The Copyright Act 2022 provides the broader legal framework for musical works and sound recordings, although copyright protection itself is distinct from content regulation. The Cybercrimes Act becomes relevant when songs and accompanying communications are distributed through computer systems and the conduct falls within offences such as pornography, specified false communications, threats or cyberstalking.
Nigeria is also bound by the African Charter, whose Article 9 protects the right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within the law.[21] These laws should not be read in isolation.
For example, a song may be protected as a copyrighted musical work, protected as artistic expression for constitutional purposes, and still be subject to broadcasting restrictions when transmitted by radio. The existence of copyright therefore does not create immunity from content regulation.
Equally, the existence of regulatory power does not extinguish constitutional rights. The Nigerian framework is consequently best understood as a layered system in which different laws regulate different stages and methods of musical dissemination.
The main legal challenge is ensuring coherence between these layers so that regulatory discretion does not become arbitrary.
12. Challenges and Criticisms of Song Regulation
One major challenge is vagueness.[22] Terms such as ‘vulgar’, ‘indecent’, ‘good taste’, ‘morality’ and ‘culturally offensive’ can be useful regulatory concepts, but they may be difficult for artists to predict in advance.
Uncertainty encourages self-censorship because artists and broadcasters may avoid lawful but controversial content simply because they fear sanctions. A second challenge is inconsistency.
If one broadcaster is sanctioned for a lyric while another transmits similar material without consequence, the legitimacy of the regulatory system is weakened. A third challenge is technological change.
Traditional broadcasting rules are easier to apply to licensed radio and television stations than to millions of digital uploads hosted on global platforms. A fourth challenge is institutional discretion.
Where a regulator has wide powers to determine what is acceptable without transparent criteria or effective review, political or cultural pressure may influence decisions.[23] The history of media regulation in Africa shows that excessive control can encourage self-censorship and undermine public access to information.
Another criticism is that morality-based restrictions may reflect the values of dominant groups rather than the diversity of Nigerian society. This is particularly significant in music because Nigerian artists operate across different ethnic, religious and generational communities.
There is also a risk that the law may focus on offensive language while ignoring the artistic context in which the language is used. Finally, punitive approaches may fail to distinguish between the artist, broadcaster, distributor and listener, even though their roles and levels of control differ.
A more sophisticated system should assign responsibility according to actual control over dissemination. It should also recognise that regulation is most legitimate when artists know the standards beforehand and have a meaningful opportunity to challenge decisions.
13. Recommendations
First, Nigerian regulators should publish clearer and more objective criteria for classifying musical content as obscene, indecent, vulgar or unsuitable for particular audiences.[24] Clear standards would improve predictability and reduce unnecessary self-censorship.
Secondly, regulators should prefer proportionate measures such as edited broadcast versions, age classification, scheduling and warnings before resorting to complete bans. To continue with, every significant regulatory sanction should be accompanied by written reasons identifying the legal provision breached, the evidence relied upon and the harm the regulator considers likely to occur.
There should be a stronger and more independent review mechanism for artists and broadcasters who challenge content decisions. In addition, the National Broadcasting Commission should continue engaging artists, labels, broadcasters, digital platforms and civil-society organisations when reviewing the Broadcasting Code so that the rules reflect technological and cultural developments.
Hate-speech regulation should adopt a high threshold based on incitement rather than mere offensiveness, using contextual factors similar to the Rabat Plan of Action.[25] Seventhly, digital regulation should distinguish state censorship from private platform moderation and should encourage transparency when lawful Nigerian music is removed or restricted. Also, the law should place greater emphasis on child protection through effective age ratings and family-safe programming rather than broad restrictions on adult artistic expression. Importantly, regulators should receive regular human-rights and entertainment-law training so that enforcement decisions reflect constitutional and regional standards.
Finally, Nigeria should develop a more coherent entertainment-law policy that recognises the economic and cultural importance of music while protecting legitimate public interests. These recommendations would not remove regulation; rather, they would make regulation more lawful, predictable and compatible with artistic freedom.
The objective should be to regulate harmful dissemination without turning the regulator into an arbiter of taste.
14. Conclusion
The regulation of song releases is a necessary but delicate part of entertainment law. Music is not merely commercial content; it is also artistic expression, cultural communication and, at times, political speech.
Nigerian law recognises the importance of expression through section 39 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter, but it also permits lawful restrictions designed to protect public morality, public safety and the rights of others.[26] Broadcasting regulation therefore has a legitimate role, especially in protecting children and ensuring responsible use of a medium capable of reaching a mass audience.
Criminal law may also intervene where material satisfies the statutory requirements for obscenity or where expression crosses recognised legal thresholds concerning harm. The difficulty begins when legitimate regulation becomes vague, selective or disproportionate censorship.
The distinction between a song being unlawful and a song being unsuitable for a particular broadcast is particularly important. In the digital age, this distinction becomes even more necessary because artists can distribute music through channels outside traditional broadcasting.
A modern regulatory framework should therefore focus on actual harm, clear legal rules and proportionate remedies.[27] It should also recognise that controversial art has social value and that democratic societies are not strengthened by eliminating every expression that causes offence.
The emerging African emphasis on artistic freedom reinforces this position. A viable approach is not to choose between artistic freedom and regulation, but to create a system in which regulation protects identifiable interests while preserving the creative space that makes music socially and culturally valuable.
Such an approach would strengthen both the entertainment industry and the rule of law.
[1] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34: Article 19 – Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011), paras 11–13.
[2] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 39.
[3] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th edn, 2019), ‘Introduction’ and ch 3.
[4] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 39 and 45.
[5] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 39 and 45.
[6] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principles 2 and 3.
[7] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principles 2 and 3.
[8] National Broadcasting Commission Act, Cap N11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, s 2.
[9] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, ‘Nigeria Broadcasting Code: 6th Edition Amended Addendum’ (2020).
[10] Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, ss 233B–233F.
[11] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th edn, 2019), para 3.5.
[12] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Hate Speech and Incitement to Hatred in Electoral Contexts’ (2024).
[13] OHCHR, ‘Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ (2012), six-part threshold test.
[14] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 45.
[15] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th edn, 2019), paras 3.5 and 3.6.
[16] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Part IV.
[17] Chukwudi K Anyiam, Bankole Sodipo and Ayoyemi Lawal-Arowolo, ‘Examining the Regulatory Framework for the Nigerian Entertainment Industry in the Digital Sphere’ (2025) International Journal of Law and Clinical Legal Education.
[18] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principle 2.
[19] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principle 2.
[20] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 39 and 45.
[21] National Broadcasting Commission Act, Cap N11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, s 2.
[22] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principles 2, 5 and 13.
[23] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th edn, 2019), paras 3.5, 3.6 and 3.13.
[24] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019), Principles 2, 5 and 13.
[25] OHCHR, ‘Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ (2012).
[26] Nigerian Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th edn, 2019), ch 3.
[27] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34: Article 19 – Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011).