Spraying of naira is Nigeria’s culture and tradition, Adeyanju wants lawmakers to scrub naira abuse law

By our reporter 17-5-2025
Human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, said the National Assembly should take a hard look at the law against naira abuse and repeal Section 21 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act, 2007.
Against the backgroun of arrest and prosecution of mostly Nigerian celebrities by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr. Adeyanju argued that spraying of money at social events was part of Nigeria’s culture and tradiction.
“The spraying of money has long been a cherished cultural practice in Nigeria that is deep-rooted in the social fabric of celebrations such as weddings, birthdays, funerals, chieftaincy ceremonies, etc. It is an act that expresses joy, generosity, and goodwill,” Adeyanju said.
“For many communities, spraying money is not merely a display of wealth but a performative language of affection and cultural significance.
“However, the recent stance by law enforcement agencies against what is defined as the “mutilation” or “abuse” of the naira in line with the provision of Section 21, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act, 2007, has resulted in the prosecution of prominent figures for acts seemingly innocuous as spraying money at events.
“Section 21 of the CBN Act criminalises tampering with the naira, which includes spraying, writing on, stapling, or otherwise defacing notes. The intention behind this legislation, presumably, is to preserve the integrity and longevity of the national currency.
“But while the protection of the naira is a valid objective, the enforcement of this law reveals troubling inconsistencies and raises serious questions about cultural context, proportionality in punishment, and the selective targeting of individuals. What the law characterises as abuse is, for millions of Nigerians, a legitimate form of celebration. In practice, sprayed notes are not necessarily damaged or rendered unusable.
“They are often collected, preserved, and reintroduced into circulation. Yet, this nuance is lost in the rigid application of Section 21, which draws no meaningful distinction between deliberate mutilation and cultural expression.
“Any law that targets the way of life of the people is not a good law. Such a law is out of touch and out of place with the cultural heartbeat of the nation it seeks to govern. The law must serve the people, not the other way around.”