Freedoms of Expression, Media, and Association
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Freedoms of Expression, Media, and Association
Nigeria’s strong civil society and media play robust roles in lobbying for openness and accountability in public office. It is this vibrancy, perceived as a challenge to unbridled exercise of government authority, which recent legislation appear to target.
The “Bill to Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and Other Matters Connected Therewith” introduced in the Senate in December 2015 specifically targets users of social and electronic media. The June 2016 “Bill to provide for the Establishment of Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Regulatory Commission in Nigeria” seeks to monitor and control activities and funding of civil society organizations.
The NGO regulation bill passed second reading at the federal House of Representatives in July, and was referred to the committee on civil society organizations and development partners for review. Concerted advocacy by activists may have aborted the passage of the “social media” bill, but regular display of high levels of intolerance by government agents continue to imperil free speech.
On August 8, blogger Abubakar Usman was detained for two days in Abuja by the EFCC for writing a piece critical of Ibrahim Magu, chairman of the commission. Barely a month later, another blogger, Emenike Iroegbu was arrested and his computer and phones seized by Department of State Security agents in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state, for criticizing state government officials in a publication. He was released the following day without charges.
On a positive note, the Federal House of Representatives introduced in June, a Digital Rights and Freedom bill, which aims to protect the rights and freedoms of internet users.
The motives of the proponents and sponsors of the Bill is clear: to intimidate whistle-blowers.
In my respectful opinion, this Bill is totally unnecessary, grandiose, superfluous, duplicatory, self-serving and time-wasting. My reasons are simple:
1. We already have more than enough provisions in our laws to take care of the same issues as the proppsed Bill. For instance, it is a criminal offence under our laws to give false information to law enforcers, concerning another person. It is defamatory to tell law enforcers that Mr. A has billions of government money stolen and hidden somewhere. If it turns out to be false, the victim is entitled to claim monetary damages for the damage to his reputation.
Specifically, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 provides that if you make a report against another, which leads to that person’s arrest or trial, and that report turns out to be false, then you will be ordered to pay compensation to that person; and you may be jailed if you fail/neglect to pay. There are many similar provisions in our statute books all over.
2. The Bill’s intentions are apparently mala fide. It is obvious that the Bill is designed to intimidate the citizenry into not reporting suspected looters. It is not disputed that people with malicious intentions may make false reports in order to settle scores. But who are the intended beneficiaries of this Bill? Who does it seek to protect? The answers to these questions have opened our eyes to the true intentions of the Bill..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.