The introduction of Social Media Bill in the Senate last year was greeted with torrents of condemnations, with many commentators saying the aim was to muzzle the social media, which has emboldened the citizenry to hold government and its agencies to account. But despite the calls for its withdrawal, the bill scaled second reading in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, chaired by Senator Opeyemi Bamidele (Ekiti Central) for further legislative work. Daily Trust on Sunday looks at arguments for and against the proposed legislation.
The Senate, last Monday, opened discussions on the “Protection from Internet Falsehoods, Manipulations and other Related Matter Bill, 2019” which has continued to generate controversy since its introduction.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa (Niger East), proposes to criminalise the use of social media in peddling false or malicious information and prescribes fines ranging from N150,000 up to N10 million and a three-year jail term or both for breaching its provisions when signed into law.
The proposed act would also allow the Police to cut off internet access or block specific social media platform, where false information is being transmitted.
“The Police may issue an access blocking order directing the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to order an internet service provider (ISP) to disable access by end-users in Nigeria to an online location where a false declaration is being transmitted. This applies to cases where there has been a failure by a person to comply with a regulation to correct or stop the transmission.
“ISPs that fail to comply can face criminal charges and be subject to a fine of up to N10 million,” it says.
The bill also contains provisions prohibiting statements online deemed “likely to be prejudicial to national security” and “those which may diminish public confidence” in government – offences that would be punishable by fines of up to N300,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
More than two dozens of institutions and groups appeared at Monday’s public hearing on the bill.
Those who backed the proposed act said it would enhance national security by checking the spread of false information online.
Those who spoke against it urged the Senate to halt further consideration of the proposed legislation because its provisions infringe human rights and contravene international instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory.
They said it was completely unnecessary as the existing laws have provisions that address issues raised in the bill.
President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan had said the Senate opened discussion on the bill to aggregate “well-reasoned arguments” which were needed to make an informed decision.
Lawan, in an opening address at the hearing, said the National Assembly would not arrogate to itself the power of exclusively passing the bill into law without inputs from the Nigerian public.
‘Why I want social media regulated’
The sponsor of the bill, Senator Musa, said he was aware of the outrage that trailed the legislation but was quick to add that the intention was to curb the spread of false information on the internet.
He said the proposed regulation was not another form of censorship, neither an attempt to muzzle free speech.
He said, “Press freedom and free speech are some of the hallmarks of a democracy. But the overwhelming potency of social media has necessitated some regulation, even in advanced democracies.
“This regulation, via law, rules or procedures are for certain goals, for example, to protect the public interest, or encouraging competition and an effective media market, or establishing common standards.
“The proposed regulation is supposed to make the companies protect users from content involving things like violence, terrorism, cyberbullying, child abuse, and religious incitement.
“Companies/individuals will have to ensure that harmful content is removed quickly and take steps to prevent it from appearing in the first place.”
The bill, he said, should be considered in view of national security, adding “it is in my interest to see it enacted. If it is accepted, so be it. If not, I will continue to push for regulation of social media on other grounds.”
Supporters
Those who backed the bill were the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and Civil Voices Coalition for Protection of Rights and Privileges.
The Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, said countries were taking measures to promote national security and Nigeria should not be an exception.
Buratai, who was represented by Maj.-Gen. Solomon Uduonwa, Deputy Chief of Policy and Planning of the Nigerian Army, said the measures “may appear to limit individual liberties but all in the interest of the nation.”
He said, “Internet falsehoods can undermine military leadership, lower troops morale, hurt the image of the service and even harm personnel safety and that of their families.
“Internet falsehood not only distorts information but also misinforms members of the military and the general public. It severely impacts operational security and could also endanger inter-service rivalry where two or more services of the armed forces and other security agencies are pitted against each other.”
Also, NSCIA and the civic group said it supported the bill in view of national security.
NSCIA’s Director of Administration, Ustaz Yusuf Nwoha, said the council backed the proposed legislation that “seeks to criminalise the issue of internet falsehood” but cautioned against using it to infringe on the freedom of speech.
Oppositions
The Executive Vice-Chairman of the Nigerian Communications Commission, (NCC), Umar Dambata, raised concerns that certain provisions of the bill were difficult to implement, and that these provisions could be used to infringe on human rights.
The bill, he said, gives too much power to the Police and other security agencies.
He said the commission does not regulate the content on the internet but is only responsible for providing infrastructure.
The Country Director, Amnesty International, Osai Ojigho, said the bill is a threat to freedom of expression as it will limit criticism of the government.
“Amnesty International is seriously concerned that the social media bill will only serve as a basis to deter public debate, criticism of the government, and political dissent. If passed, the bill will create a significant chilling effect on human rights including freedom of expression online in Nigeria,” she said.
The Executive Director of YIAGA Africa, Samson Itodo, said the bill was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society even though the government’s purpose may be legitimate and substantial.
The Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) President, Christopher Isiguzo, said the bill would pigeon-hole Nigerians from freely expressing themselves, noting that “when the people are suppressed, it endangers democracy.”
Executive Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), Clement Nwankwo said if passed, the bill would worsen Nigeria’s human rights record.
The Executive Director, International Press Centre, Lanre Arogundade cautioned against “embarking on the journey that will negate” the principles of international conventions that protect the rights to freedom of expression.
Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Nigeria Law Reforms, Spaces for Change, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, among others, also opposed the proposed act.
Bill’s fate hangs in the balance
With the aggregate of opinions so far on the Social Media Bill, it is unlikely if the piece of legislation will scale third reading if the words of the Senate President and those of the sponsor are anything to go by.
While Lawan stressed that the “Senate’s eventual position will be partly dependent on the committee’s report.”
For Senator Musa “the support of Nigerians in enriching this report is very important” noting that the interest of Nigerians superseded his.
The panel’s chairman, Opeyemi Bamidele said members would “take our time to go through every memorandum and, based on this, do a report. This is a private member bill. The Senate cannot be held responsible for a member bill. We will advise the Senate based on our findings. No one has any firm position on this. We know the eyes of the world are on us,” he said.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
