Minister of information shuns public debate on hate speech bills

Participants at the Town Hall meeting on social media bills were stunned over the absence of the minister of information, Lai Mohammed, at the public debate on the bills in Abuja.

More worrisome for the participants was the absence of any representative of the ministry of information to the one-day event where stakeholders shared their thoughts on the bills.

In attendance were the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, represented by the special adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr Umar Jubrilu Gwandu.

Also in attendance were the President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila represented by Chairman House of Representatives committee in Communication, Hon. Segun Odebunmi Representatives of the National Communications Commission (NCC).

Tribune Online checks reveal that the Information Minister had in a recent foreign interview denied the existence of the hate speech bills.

Expressing the disappointment of the organizers of the event, Chairman Daar communications, Raymond Dokoesi Jnr, said: “I had hoped that the ministry of information will be here today, however, all efforts to attract a representative to cast more light on the position of government regarding these key issues as well as the content of the bill proved abortive.”

ALSO READ: FG to convene stakeholders meeting on social media regulation

Addressing the participants, Lawan said as the coordinator of the debate at Senate plenary where the bills are still undergoing legislative processes, he will not be categorical in the bill but assured Nigerians that their views would be taken into consideration in working the bills.

The Senate President said there are sufficient reasons to address the challenge of hate speech and fake news in Nigerian society.

“We are here today because of some of these challenges, which is the challenge of hate speech and fake news. Added to this is the extent to which government should intervene. Important also is the need to come to an understanding on the best approach in finding a way forward.

“I need to reiterate that we are a democratic nation, where dialogue, conversation, disagreement and agreement are central to how we resolve issues. When exchanges are meaningful, we are sure to have a productive outcome. But when it is characterised with ceaseless conflict, I doubt if there can be progress.

“This is the direction that the National Assembly has always followed, by asking citizens to be involved in the democratic process. Of course, democracy is about inclusion and participation.

“We do not expect these features only in the provision of the dividends of democracy, but also in the processes that lead to it,” Lawan said.

The Senate President noted that the liberalisation of information on various social media platforms has been exploited severally and is subject to different dimensions of abuse.

He warned that if left unchecked without the introduction of laws and sanctions, it could have consequences on the nation.

“The point about progress in information technology that I earlier made is central. There is no doubt that this progress has resulted into the liberalisation of information gathering and sharing.

“The new freedom has led to an equally new celebration. The citizen is now supposedly freer, and probably more participatory in conversations. This is consistent with the philosophy of democracy.

“Coming with this freedom however is different patterns and channels of abuses. This comes through half-truths, lies, and hate speech. Concerned about this trend, some countries have imposed sanctions, as deterrence, or to prevent it from happening.

“The thinking is that humans have different motivations and diverse behavioural tendencies. If left unchecked, some might go awry, which is the reason why we have laws and other control systems in organisations and societies.”

The Senate President, however, urged Nigerians to eschew sentiments, look dispassionately and examine all matters critically.

“Where do we go from here as a nation, therefore? Should we endlessly permit the freedom, or do we rely on existing laws to deal with supposed infractions? Can we really say we have enough laws to deal with infractions?

“And if so, are we implementing them enough? On the other hand, should we think of more laws, in the interest of protecting the rights of those offended, which might include persons, institutions, or even the state? Or should we rather think of media literacy campaign, to sensitise the people about their rights and limitations?

“I am sure that at the end of this meeting, we should be able to find good answers to these questions, not just to enrich our knowledge on the discourse on hate speech and fake news, but also to assist the National Assembly, and even the government as a whole, on way forward.

“In discussing these issues, we need to realise that we are all stakeholders in the civil society and in governance. As stakeholders, we should be dispassionate and be able to examine all matters critically.

“Emotions and sentiments hardly help in a gathering like this. If our minds are open to all lines of thoughts, we will then develop a sense of perspective. Our conclusions will subsequently be helpful to the National Assembly and the government at large.

“Like I have always said, this ninth National Assembly is open to ideas. Good policy directions and decisions come through a rigorous process of debate, and with participation from all shades of opinion,” the President of the Senate stated.

The Attorney-general, in his submission, said a responsive government would not sit back and allow deliberate disseminating misinformation, disinformation, fake news and other forms of misleading information that poses risk to the society.