Proposed Social Media Regulation Bill: Retrogressive and Waste of Resources
KFreedom of Expression nowledge, they say is power. Though recently, it’s been rephrased as ‘knowledge applied is power’. Either way, it starts with knowledge before application. Freedom of expression which promotes knowledge, is therefore one of the signs of democracy. Nigeria, being a democratic State, guaranteed this right in Section 39 of our Constitution. However, this right is not absolute, meaning that in exercising this right, people will be cautious in not defaming others, so they will not be sued for slander and libel in civil suits and for defamation in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Code, attracting 1 or 2 years imprisonment, depending on the circumstances. However, if the published facts are true, though defamatory, it will not amount to an offence.
Realising the importance of information in a democracy, Nigeria joined the league of developed States in enacting Freedom of Information Act, aimed at making public information more accessible to Nigerians in the interest of the public, which will in turn promote transparency, accountability and responsibility. As Nigerians are still trying to make practical meaning of the law by suing public institutions who fail to disclose public information, the law makers have come up with a bill to regulate social media. While this is not a problem per se, as it is done in other countries, and people must be held responsible for their oral and written publications online or offline. I earlier pointed out that the right to expression is not absolute, for instance, Section 60 of the Criminal Code (CC) punishes defamation of anyone in authority with 2 years imprisonment. Of course, he/ she can still sue for slander/libel to claim compensatory damages in form of money, public apology, etc. Again, Section 204CC punishes with 2 years imprisonment, insulting of a religious group.
The Unnecessary Protection from Internet Falsehoods and Manipulations Bill
Nevertheless, I fault the present action of the law makers because they are wasting tax payers’ resources, in giving us what we already have. The proposed Bill called ‘Protection from Internet Falsehoods and Manipulations’ is aimed at preventing transmission of false statement through the internet. It defines this statement to be that i) prejudicial to security ii) Prejudicial to public health or safety iii) Prejudicial to friendly relations with other countries iv) Influencing outcome of election v) Inciting feelings of enmity to a person or between different groups vi) Diminishing public confidence in government’s performance of duty.
Items i and ii are covered by Section 59CC, punishing with 3 years imprisonment, the publication of false news which causes fear to the public/disturbs public peace. In extreme cases, item i could be an act of terrorism as defined by Section 1 of Terrorism Act, and punished as such.
Item iv is an offence under the Electoral Act, punishable with 6 months imprisonment and or N100, 000 fine.
Item v, seriously intimidating a population, is partly covered by Section 1 of Terrorism Act, Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention) Act punishable with N7 million or imprisonment for a term of 3 years and Section 50(2) CC dealing with sedition.
Item vi is particularly tricky, as it rubbishes the essence of FOI Act, the freedom of expression and defence of sedition.
Sedition What exactly is sedition? According to Section 50CC, It is a publication:
a)to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the person of the President or of the Governor or the Government of the Federation; or (b) to excite the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Nigeria as by law established; or (c) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria; or (d) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of the population of Nigeria. The punishment is 2 years imprisonment and or N200 fine. However, it is no sedition if the publication intends - (i) to show that the President or the Governor has been misled or mistaken in any measure in the Federation or a State, (ii) to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of Nigeria, or of any State thereof, as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; or (iii) to persuade the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or (iv) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Nigeria.
The meaning of sedition is clear and the offence is understandable, as it will destabilise the government or a population leading to insecurity, war, etc; but item vi of the proposed Bill that talks about diminishing public confidence in the activities of government is vague, retrogressive and stifling. A government can only diminish public confidence through its actions or inactions.
A non-performing government will attribute criticism and even true information published about its activities under the FOI Act, as an attempt to diminish public confidence. The situation will be worse than what obtains under the military, and no one will escape it. This item stretches sedition beyond reason, and hence unreasonable.
Yes, the N200 fine provided under the CC is not stringent, but that shows the age of that law. The legislators can amend it to bring it in tune with modern realities, it is part of legislative exercise, but, the proposed bill is a no, no.
Uju Peace, Abuja
“..... I FAULT THE PRESENT ACTION OF THE LAW MAKERS BECAUSE THEY ARE WASTING TAX PAYERS’ RESOURCES, IN GIVING US WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE”