March 9, 2019 will be a date to be remembered by millions of Nigerians, particularly, users of the limitless internet space, whose representatives in form of organisation or coalition trooped to the National Assembly to dissect a pending bill in the ninth Assembly. The controversial bill is entitled: The Protection from Internet Falsehoods, Manipulations and other Related Matters Bill, 2019 (SB 132). It is otherwise called the Social Media Bill. It was apparent during the event that members of the public had fully mobilised in the bid to kill and bury the bill.
Beyond the preponderance of opposition to the bill are a few who think the bill should be given a second chance. In this minority representation at the public hearing were the National Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs of Nigeria (NSCIA), the Nigerian Army and the Civil Voices Coalition for the Protection of Rights and Privileges, represented by Ustaz Yusuf Nwoha, Major General Solomon Udoma and Aliyu Mustapha, respectively. The Army said internet falsehood tends to undermine military authority and creates inter-agency conflict even as it undermines national security, while the NSCIA said though falsehood should be punished, human rights should not be sacrificed in the process.
On the surface, the bill appeared salutary. It seeks “to prevent transmission of false statements/declaration of facts in Nigeria and enable measures to be taken to counter the effects of such transmission. It is also to suppress the enhancing, promotion and other support of online locations that repeatedly transmit false statements/ declaration of facts.
Part of the objectives of the bill is to enable measures to be taken to detect, control and safeguard against uncoordinated inauthentic behaviour and other misuses of online accounts and bots. The most controversial and provision in the bill states about the need “to enable measures to be taken to enhance disclosure of information concerning paid content direct towards a political end to sanction offenders.”
Interrogating the provisions, the acting chairman of the Nigeria Law Reform Commission (NLF), Professor Jummai Audi, described the bill as an attempt to give draconian powers to the police. According to him, more worrisome is the bid to give absolute powers to security agencies to determine if an accused can appeal or otherwise.
There was outrage from Nigerians from all walks of life who converged on Hall 022 in the Senate Wing of the National Assembly complex, where they met with members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters chaired by Senator Opeyemi Bamidele. The president of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan, was on ground.
Setting the tone for discussion, Lawan told the gathering that the bill was passing through a normal legislative process, adding that its survival would depend on public support. He said the social media bill had attracted public interest, especially because it affects the internet where many Nigerians had evolved various communities that had bonded.
Expressing his understanding of the import of the bill, Lawan stated: “This hearing is a crucial one because the bill has generated a lot of passion. The passion is not unexpected because it relates to the Internet. The Internet has become central to our lives, as it has reshaped how we live, work and how we interact. Like every other innovation, it has had its positive and negative sides. While it has somewhat made communication easier, faster and even cheaper, it has also affected our ability to easily trust some information.
“When this kind of situation arises, we should interrogate all the sides in the divides on a continuous basis. Doing this will lead to a better understanding of the dimensions and provide an agreeable way forward,” Lawan said.
Many stakeholders, including representatives of government and private organisations, as well as coalitions and individuals were at the event to dissect the bill. Their verdict: kill this bill. All the groups had earlier submitted their memoranda to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters.
As each stakeholder spoke, an entirely new dimension on the bill was brought to the fore. The stakeholders argued that the bill particularly sought to concentrate so much power in a police force known for gross abuse. A lot of the participants in the hall claimed to have been victims of police brutality.
Another ground they cited for opposing the bill was because of the general perception that the police remained a willing tool in the hands of state governors and key actors at the federal level. For these Nigerians, passing the bill into law will amount to shrinking the space for free civil conversations. There were, however, a few voices that spoke in favour of the social media bill. Their views were drowned by the avalanche of opposition to the bill. Before the advocacy for or against the social media bill, Lawan observed that the divergent views, including the emotional display and anger that characterised the session, constituted the hallmark of the parliament.
“It is pursuant to our procedure to open up discussions that we have invited you all. In assembling here today however, we need to remember that there are multiple positions on every argument. This implies that we should not just be open-minded and dispassionate, but should also be ready to hear the other side, no matter how strong we feel about our own position.
“It is trite to say that information and knowledge grow in an atmosphere of listening and sharing. When we listen, we put ourselves on a better ground to reasonably agree or disagree, because our own understanding would have grown. When we are intolerant of an opposing view, we will not be able to relate with the message of the speaker. ‘Disagreement comes thereafter, and it will prevent us from having a clearer roadmap. I agree that matters of freedom of speech and the inalienable rights of man are issues we should not compromise. I also agree that the right of an individual ends where the rights of another individual begins.
“The rope between the freedom of an individual and the limits of that individual is often a tight one to walk. As a people however, we cannot stop discussing this freedom and its limitations for peace and harmony, growth and development. I am assured that with the people carefully invited here today, we are in a good position to proffer well-reasoned arguments on way forward on the bill.”
ALSO READ: National Assembly’s bills of controversy
However, there was unanimity among the representatives of the various groups and organisations in their opposition to the bill. The executive director of Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre, Clement Nwankwo, reasoned that the bill which was fraught with errors, should be shut down for being completely out of tune with current realities and nature of modern progressive laws.
The submission of the Broadcasting organisation of Nigeria (BON) was delivered by Sada Ibrahim amidst applause by the audience. “We want to comment on Item 1(d) where the bill states that “to enable measures to be taken to enhance disclosure of information concerning paid content directed towards a political end” and sanction offenders. She noted that BON described the bill as vague and misleading. Her words: “Our comment is that this bill appeared to be undefined and misleading as far as it relates to politics as opposed to dealing with internet falsehood. This item, as far as the position of BON is concerned, should be deleted.”
Yusuf Shamsudeen while presenting the position paper of the Centre for Democracy and Development, stated that their concern was also on the access blocking order the bill sought to achieve when government feels it was not comfortable with a particular view expressed in the internet. “We first accept that Nigeria is faced with serious security challenges, so access blocking order will deter online intelligence through both blocking online access and possibly stimulating the development of online commotion,” he stated.
So, Nigerians await the outcome of the bill as it returns to the Senate vide a report from the ad-hoc for further legislative action.