Against unthinking gags on the social media

ONE of the fallouts of the recent nationwide #EndSARS protests is the resuscitation of calls for the regulation of the social media in Nigeria. The wave of tumultuous youth protests and their violent aftermath having been hijacked by hoodlums has triggered a renewed bid for protagonists of the suspended social media bill to relaunch an aggressive legislative proposal. The renewed call for the reintroduction of the rejected bill though amplified by the Federal Ministry of Information, does not imply that the bill originated from the Executive arm of government. It was the attendant spread of false information on the internet that has precipitated this new wave of agitation.

Titled, ‘Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill’, the Social media bill was introduced by Senator Sani Musa (APC, Niger) in 2019. But it received spontaneous criticism from a section of the society and rejection from critical quarters as a vocal section of the society believed that it would impinge on the growth of the country’s democracy and the freedom of the people to express themselves and hold government accountable on good governance matters. Some of the provisions in the bill that make it somewhat draconian are the stringent penalties for violations with a fine of up to N300,000 or a three-year imprisonment for individuals and N10 million for corporate organisations.

The proposed law also grants security agencies unusually wide powers considered highly contentious over internet intermediaries. Indeed, opponents of the bill have cited the Nigerian Communications Commission Act that empowers the agency to oversee the function of telecommunications providers and the Cybercrime Act as a legislation that contains stipulations for sharing of false information. They also cite the Constitution that grants freedom of speech as well as laws that spell out restrictions and penalties in case of a breach.

There are quite a number of laws in our statute books that take care of such kind of infringements emanating from the spread of fake and defamatory news items or narratives. We recognise the right of government to be concerned about developments that could potentially destabilise the society and even the right to ensure that public order is not undermined by seditious commentary and fake news; but there is something unhealthy and ominous about any move towards enacting a new legislation just to curb certain “uncomfortable” public opinion when there are enough laws already in the statute books to deal with such issues.

Freedom of expression is clearly embedded in the Nigerian Constitution and other international conventions to which Nigeria is a signatory. For instance, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations on December 19, 1966, equally recognises and obligates State parties to ensure that the right to press freedom is respected and protected at all times.

However, it must also be noted that the freedom is not absolute. There are indeed limits to the freedom to express opinions and perspectives. This includes adhering to the highest ethical and professional standards as required by professional conduct and ethical principles. There are also legal restrictions provided by relevant statutes including respect of the rights or reputations of others and the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals. Therefore, Nigeria has got sufficient legal frameworks within which to regulate the careless use of social media at any time. Perhaps, the problem for the State is the lack of efficient mechanisms for regulating the liberal freedoms of the citizens in ways as to promote the general provisions of the rule of law, despite the usual official knee-jerk reaction to criticisms of governmental actions and policies.

There is widespread concern that the proposed laws on the social media would only lead to the curtailment of the freedom of speech and the practical diminishing of the potential of the social media to bring to light unpopular or unjustified actions and policies of the government. Aside from the federal government’s stance on the current social media situation, many Nigerians are concerned about the potential return of the old authoritarian-military tendencies of stifling public opinion in admittedly democratic institutions. They point to the seeming disposition of governors to throw away the baby with the bath water in their overwhelming endorsement of the proposed strangulation of the social media soon after the protests. This situation portends a drift into authoritarian and anti-democratic space that could undermine the democratic order and the liberal freedoms that are part and parcel of democratic rule.

There is no doubt that there are many tendentious materials in the social media space, given the fact that many use it to spread fake news and other misleading information, but there are much more desirable and enlightening aspects about social media content. A much better way to stem the pervasiveness of fake and potentially destructive messages generally is for the leadership to lead and govern well: be transparent, provide infrastructure, create a much more beneficial environment for jobs and social safety nets for the unemployed and the vulnerable, invest in human capital, provide basic infrastructure, provide a much better health care system and invest in a more sustainable food programme. The government should provide effective security for all citizens, keep communication open with the citizens, and adopt better economic policies that minimise hardship, crippling inflation and huge income disparities in the economy and politics.

It is important that states must give proper account of the statutory allocations that they get from the Federation Account and the internally generated revenues of their respective governments. It is obvious that the state governors are not accountable to any other authority. The State Houses of Assembly are supposed to act as checks on their governors; unfortunately, these formal institutions are no more than just extensions of the Governor’s Office and so cannot carry out their statutory functions for fear of being sanctioned and demonised. This state of affair explains why state governors are operating like emperors.

If the sub-regional governments were to be operating optimally, the pressure would not be so much on the federal government. The people are also complicit in that they do not demand accountability from their state governments, and thus give the impression that it is the federal government that is responsible for everything and should thus be held accountable for the overall development of the country. Why Nigeria is in this peculiar mess is because most of the state governors are not transparent and honest with the populace. That is why they believe that banning social media would shield their inadequacies from the people.

All over the world, it is only totalitarian regimes that attempt to regulate the social media. In liberal democratic countries such as those in the west, the social media operate largely unfettered. As indicated earlier, the only practical means of mitigating the noisome decibels of the social media is good governance. Democracy thrives where there is no deliberate attempt to gag the media – whether social or conventional. Therefore, any sustained attempt to muscle the social media might also affect the growth of the conventional media in many ways and, by extension, the growth of the Nigerian civil society.

The social media is a fundamental presence in all truly democratic societies, and for this reason, we cannot imagine any laws or institutional regulations that are designed to deliberately undermine their efficacy as organs of liberal self-assertion. Government should therefore use existing laws to deal with unbecoming situations instead of shopping for new regulations that may infringe on democratic rights of the citizens.