A provision in the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeking to restrict preaching in commercial buses is raising questions about how Nigeria’s lawmakers can regulate religious expression in shared public spaces.
Development Diaries reports that the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) has objected to the provision, describing it as a threat to religious freedom, while the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), George Akume, has said consultation with religious bodies will continue.
For passengers squeezed into commercial buses for hours, the issue is also about how a shared space should be used. Someone travelling to work or returning home may not want to listen to preaching, while another passenger may see the journey as an opportunity to share their faith. Transport workers are left managing these competing interests in a space where passengers cannot simply walk away.
Nigeria’s constitution protects religious expression alongside the rights of passengers and other citizens, with Section 38 guaranteeing freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest and propagate one’s faith, while Section 39 protects freedom of expression.
Those freedoms may be restricted where the law provides a clear basis and the restriction serves a legitimate purpose such as public order or protecting the rights of others.
The issue with the FRSC Amendment Bill is whether lawmakers are trying to stop disruptive behaviour on commercial buses or stop preaching itself, because excessive noise, harassment or forcing passengers to participate in religious activities can be prohibited without banning religious expression. A provision that prohibits preaching altogether would go further by restricting the expression of religion itself.
The wording of the bill could determine whether it protects passengers or creates room for selective enforcement. If officials are left to decide what constitutes unacceptable religious expression, the same conduct could attract different treatment depending on the faith of the person involved, the location of the bus or the official enforcing the provision.
In a country where religious identity already carries significant regional and communal sensitivities, that discretion could create new grievances.
The people who depend most on commercial transport also have the most to lose from a poorly designed provision. Low-income workers, traders and students who spend hours travelling by bus need protection from harassment and disruption, while smaller religious communities need assurance that restrictions will not be applied more aggressively against them than against larger or better-connected groups.
The National Assembly should make the specific problem the bill is intended to solve part of the public discussion before the legislation proceeds. Lawmakers should explain the evidence behind the proposed restriction and whether existing rules on noise, harassment and public conduct are insufficient to address the concerns raised by passengers and transport workers.
The PFN should have a place in that process, alongside other religious organisations, transport unions, passenger representatives and civil liberties advocates.
The Senate and House of Representatives should publish the relevant provision of the bill, invite submissions from affected groups and subject the proposed restriction to public scrutiny before deciding whether and how it should proceed, while the SGF should ensure that its consultation with religious bodies feeds into that legislative process.
