Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) on Monday asked the Senate to quickly withdraw the proposed anti-socal media bill, saying if passed, the legislation will infringe the fundamental freedom of expression of the citizenry.
This is just as the organisations queried the excessive powers the bill intends to entrust to the Nigeria Police to enforce prosecution of offenders of internet falsehood.
Tagged “Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill 2019” the bill is being sponsored by Senate Sani Musa (Niger East).
The bill which seeks to criminalise the use of the social media in peddling false or malicious information and to punish offenders, was first introduced in the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 5 November, 2019.
After the bill was passed for second reading, early this year, it was later referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters for further legislative action.
On Monday, the Senate held public hearing at the National Assembly complex to collate views of Nigerians and to determine whether or not the bill should be passed.
Out of sixty organisations including some government agencies, erudite lawyers and Chief Executive officers of media outfits that presented their memorandum to the committee, sixty two of them vehemently rejected and opposed the bill, and asked the Senate to withdraw it.
They said the bill is a duplication of extant laws and that it will oppress freedom of expression of the citizenry, as well as affect democratic tenets.
Sponsor of the bill, Senator Musa had explained that the bill became imperative due to rampant cases of falsehood and information manipulations on the internet. He described internet falsehood as “an epidemic like the coronovirus.”
Musa stated that legislation was necessary to ensure control and regulation of the use of social so as not to jeopardise national growth.
According to him, the bill is not intended to infringe the fundamental human rights of the citizenry but to eradicate propagation of falsehood as enshrined in the constitution.
While insisting that the bill was not plagiarised as alleged in certain quarters, Musa further stated that it will only institutionalise a legal framework to regulate use of the social media.
“The falsehood and information manipulations on the internet is not just a virus but has become an epidemic like the corpnavirus the entire world is ighting to cure.
“We are aware of section 39(1)of the constitution which stipulates that evryperson shall be entitled to freedom of expression without interference.
“The bill is not to infringe fundamental human rights but as enshrined in the constitution. I will continue to push on grounds why Nigeria need to enact the antisocial media bill.
“Nobody is going to block people from the use of social media but you must be in line; nobody is is saying you cannot ceirise government but you must not propagate falsehood; This is what this bill intends.
“A lot of people have gotten married through the social media and it is one of the many benefits of the social media but information manipulation and falsehood can collapse a nation and the globe in general,” he said.
However, some of the the CSOs and agencies including the NUJ, NCC, Nigerian Army, Amnesty international, BON, law reform commission, Yiaga Africa, among others, insisted that the bill is anti people.
Chris Isiguzo, chairman of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) who was first person to make presentation during the hearing said the bill, if passed, can only “pigeonholed Nigerians.”
“The bill seeking to pigeonholed Nigerians from expressing themselves. The NUJ is totally opposed to this address we want to advise the sponsors to withdraw same as this clear proliferation of Nigerians Laws which is not a unique ingredient of democratic governance.
“It is an acceptable fact that fake news is worst than coronavirus, government can regulate platforms but regulating end users is against the tenets of democracy,” Isuguzo stated.
Also, Osai Osamigo, country director of Amnesty International, said the bill “will not meet the minimum standard of legality and should not be passed.
Jumai Audi, Director General of Law Reform commission who questioned who the proposed law seek to protect, further noted that the bill has created imbalance between government and the citizenry, and that it has given excessive powers to police for enforcement of the law.
“Who does the law seek to protect? The bill does not create balance between the interest of the people and government. Also powers donated to police in the bill is too much, the enforcement should be a matter for the court to determine and not the police. The role of the police is to arrest, interrogate and prosecute, they don’t have the skill to enforce a law,” she stated.
Speaking for Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo said the bill should be complety rejected because apart from the law being a duplication, it will over regulate Nigerians and infringe on their rights.
“The Senate should note that there are extant laws that already cater to objectice of the bill or the issues it seeks to address. Adding to this laws, will amount to over regulation, unnecessary duplication thereby making Nigeria a policed state,” Itodo stated.
Saad Ibrahim, Chairman of the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON), said the bill appears to be undefined and that some parts should be deleted if it must be passed. He however, insisted that the bill is unnecessary.
Senate President, Ahmad Lawan explained that the bill was thrown before public views to lead to a better understanding of the dimensions and provide an agreeable way forward.
“The Senate, and indeed the National Assembly have never assumed the position of knowing it all. Our rules and procedures do not even envisage a position where we will arrogate to ourselves knowledge of everything.
“It was for this reason that we were prompt in referring the protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations and for Related Matters Bill, 2019 (sb.132), to the relevant committee last November.
“And 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 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,” Lawan stated.
