The removal of the Facebook account of Plateau-based cleric, Rev. Ezekiel Dachomo, has intensified national debate on digital censorship, online safety regulations and the limits of state influence over social-media content moderation.
The deletion was first disclosed by social-media commentator Isaac Show, who said Rev. Dachomo personally informed him that his accounts had been taken down across several platforms. According to Show, the justification reportedly given for the deletion was that the cleric’s posts were considered capable of “jeopardising national security.” Show rejected the allegation and accused authorities of attempting to silence voices drawing attention to killings in parts of the country.
Show also claimed his own Facebook page had been shadow-banned, describing the move as a broader pattern of digital suppression. He insisted that he and the cleric would continue speaking out, framing the restrictions as a consequence of their advocacy.
Rev. Dachomo later confirmed the account deletion in a message to journalists. In recent years, the cleric has gained both national and international attention for repeatedly alleging that Christian communities across certain northern states face targeted attacks. His statements—including interviews with foreign media and testimony before the United States Congress—have made him a prominent, though controversial, voice in discussions on religious freedom and security in Nigeria.
Dachomo has previously stated that he documents incidents affecting communities in Plateau, Benue, Kaduna and Taraba States. His supporters argue that shutting down his online platforms undermines transparency and weakens tracking of violence in rural areas where official information is often limited.
The latest development raises significant legal and constitutional questions, particularly regarding:
Freedom of expression under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution;
Regulation of digital platforms and the extent of government influence over private tech companies;
National security considerations used to justify content removal; and
The balance between preventing misinformation and protecting whistle-blowers who document human-rights concerns.
No official statement has yet been released by the Nigerian government or Facebook’s parent company, Meta. Human-rights organisations, however, have renewed calls for transparent guidelines on content moderation—especially in contexts where digital restrictions may silence individuals reporting insecurity or human-rights violations.
For now, the incident highlights the growing tension between security claims and the protection of fundamental rights in Nigeria’s digital space, an issue that continues to test the country’s democratic and legal institutions.
