By Sunday Ani
On Friday, June 4, Nigerians and the world indeed, were taken aback, when the Federal Government, through the Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, announced the suspension of all operations of the social media giant, Twitter. According to the minister, the government action was based on its understanding that the platform was being used for activities capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence.
The action came barely two days after Twitter deleted a controversial post by President Muhammadu Buhari, where he made reference to the country’s civil war, and threatened to deal ruthlessly with those attacking public institutions in the country.
The President’s tweet that aroused the anger of Nigerians read: “Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigeria civil war. Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand.”
Some people saw the President’s tweet as a veiled threat to massacre the Igbo just like the Nigerian government did before and during the civil war between 1967 and 1970, when an estimated three million Igbo were wantonly killed. The tweet immediately triggered series of negative comments from Nigerians at home and in the Diaspora.
Following the widespread anger and condemnation that trailed the post by millions of Twitter users from Nigeria and across the world, coupled with the fact that the tweet, according to the micro-blogging site, breached its rule number four, it was left with no choice but to delete the post.
However, barely 48 hours after the tweet was deleted, the Nigerian government released its sledge hammer as it swiftly banned the social media network, claiming that it was pursuing a sinister agenda in Nigeria; and by Saturday morning, many Nigerians could no longer access Twitter except through a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
This move promptly drew the ire of not only Nigerians, but also the diplomatic missions of Canada, the European Union, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, as they promptly condemned the government’s action, saying it was an assault on the fundamental human rights of free expression and access to information as a pillar of democracy in Nigeria.
The foreign bodies further stressed that the measure inhibits access to information and commerce, especially at a time when Nigeria needs to foster inclusive dialogue and expression of opinions, as well as share vital information on the COVID-19 pandemic.
The open condemnation by the five foreign missions in Nigeria did not go down well with the government as it immediately summoned them to a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, probably to give more explanation to the position they took. But, the foreign missions reiterated their earlier stand that the government’s action was an infringement on the people’s right to freedom of expression. The minister had told them during the meeting that Nigeria was already in talks with Twitter, even as he could not give a specific date when the suspension would be lifted. He insisted that a platform, which has the power to disseminate information among billions of people, must equally exercise such powers with a great deal of responsibility.
Different strokes for different folks
Just as the foreign missions made their position known, reactions from local and international organisations, professional bodies, politicians, as well as Nigerians from all walks of life have continued to trail the government’s action. The Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), the Amnesty International, the Media Rights Agenda (MRA), the International Press Centre (IPC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome, literary giant and Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, among others have all condemned the government’s action.
Some Nigerians view the government’s action as nothing but a clear violation of the citizens’ rights to freedom of expression, as clearly enshrined in the 1999 constitution; and a desperate move to erode one of the very important ingredients of democracy – free speech.
There are those who believe that the government’s action has presented the country in a bad light and ridiculed it before the international community. Those who hold this view also express concern that such negative image for the country would further affect foreign direct investment as no investors would ordinarily like to invest in a country where citizens’ free speech is not guaranteed.
Yet, there are those who believe that the government’s action was a confirmation that the presidency is equating the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, with President Buhari. Proponents of this opinion are quick to buttress their argument with a statement credited to the information minister, Lai Mohammed, who lamented that Twitter chose to ignore the inciting messages from the proscribed secessionist group’s leader, but was quick to enforce its rules on the president.
The NBA President, Olumide Akpata, described the government’s action as a flagrant move to infringe upon the rights of Nigerians to freely express their constitutionally guaranteed opinions through Twitter, since there is no Nigerian law that could be cited in support of the ban.
The Amnesty International (AI) also agreed that the suspension of Twitter in Nigeria has violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Nigeria is a signatory to. It described the government’s action as unlawful and a deliberate move to gag the media, repress the civic space, and undermine Nigerians’ human rights.
Nigeria’s main opposition political party, the PDP, also described the suspension as a vexatious, condemnable and barbaric move to muzzle Nigerians, particularly the youths.
The MRA and the IPC condemned the ban and even threatened to drag the government before the appropriate agencies of the African Union and United Nations if the ban was not suspended immediately, arguing that it was a violation of the rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression and access to information even as it contravenes the relevant instruments of both agencies.
The United States of America has also condemned the suspension and subsequent threats to arrest and prosecute Nigerians who use Twitter, and called on the government to respect citizens’ right to freedom of expression by reversing the suspension. It also expressed concern over the National Broadcasting Commission’s order to all television and radio broadcasters to cease using Twitter.
The US Government said unduly restricting the ability of Nigerians to report, gather, and disseminate opinions and information has no place in a democracy, insisting that freedom of expression and access to information, both online and offline, were foundational to prosperous and secure democratic societies.
Another bombshell
However, just when Nigerians were beginning to come to terms with the suspension, having quickly resorted to the alternative App, VPN, to be able to access Twitter, the Federal Government again dropped another bombshell. This time, it was the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, warning that those who are still using the social media site by whatever means would be arrested, prosecuted and punished accordingly.
The warning sparked another cycle of anger among Nigerians. Politicians, organisations, as well as professional groups, particularly those in the legal profession, who have consistently asked to be shown the part of the law which the AGF wants to rely on in this regard, have all been reacting to Malami’s order. But, the AGF through his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations, Dr. Umar Gwandu, has kept the answers under wraps, hence keeping the lawyers in the dark. He has adroitly maintained that defaulters would know the section of the law that will be used to prosecute them when they appear in court.
The AGF’s latest order came on the heels of his alleged advice to the President to suspend the constitution and declare martial law in Nigeria. Although, he has denied ever contemplating such idea let alone giving it to Mr. President, some Nigerians are linking the advice with his latest order to arrest those still using Twitter, insisting that it has just confirmed the rumour that he actually gave such advice to the president. They are of the view that arresting and prosecuting anybody found to be using Twitter after the government has banned it in Nigeria without any section of the law backing such action, amounts to suspending the constitution and applying the martial law.
However, some state governors, federal lawmakers as well as prominent clerics have openly dared the attorney general to arrest them as they continued to use the social media platform. They argued that the minister’s mere pronouncement does not amount to a law, insisting that by using Twitter, they have not breached any part of the country’s law.
Position of law
The recent government’s threat to prosecute violators of the ban even with Twitter’s promise of working to restore its network in Nigeria, has thrown a lot of Nigerians into confusion with many wanting to know exactly what the position of the law is. Does the attorney general have the powers to prosecute violators as he threatened? And under which law would he do that?
Rights activist and former second Vice President of the Nigeria Bar Association, Monday Ubani, said that the Twitter ban was unconstitutional in the first place because it violates the freedom of expression. He went further to state that since the president has not suspended the provisions of the constitution that give Nigerians freedom of expression as their fundamental human rights, he cannot take away such rights from Nigerians.
On the orders to arrest and prosecute those flouting the ban, maybe by using other means to access Twitter, Ubani said it was a provocative statement that has no place in law.
He doubted if the AGF actually gave such orders and advised that he should begin to look for another country if he actually gave such orders because Nigerians would not allow such oppressive, dictatorial tendency to take effect. Another lawyer and President of the Association for the Protection and Defence of Human Rights (APDHR), Eric Igweokolo, also took a swipe at the government’s action, even as he corroborated Ubani’s argument. He said: “The purported ban of Twitter by the Federal Government of Nigeria does not create any offence known to Nigeria law under which any person can be prosecuted in court. In section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the law provides that for a person to be arrested, detained or prosecuted for a criminal offence, there must be a written law; the offence must be defined in written law and penalty thereof must be prescribed as well as coexist.”
“The attorney general cannot make a written law because it is the legislature that makes laws. For the use of Twitter to be a criminal offence, the legislature must make a written law, wherein what constitutes an offence, and the punishment for such an offence are clearly defined.