#TwitterBan: Exploring The Legal Intricacies Of Nigeria’s Decision
#TwitterBan: Exploring the legal intricacies of Nigeria’s decision
It is no longer news that the Nigerian government has indefinitely blocked Twitter’s operations in the country.
This was disclosed by the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, on Friday, June 4, 2021. He also announced the government’s instructions to the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to begin the process of licensing over-the-top (OTT) and social media sites.
Since then, we’ve seen the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) tell carriers to suspend access to Twitter.
In another statement made on Saturday, June 5, 2021, Garba Shehu, the President’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, emphasized the platform’s role in distributing incorrect information and fake news as the basis behind the ban.
He also advised dismissing the assumption that the restriction is a knee-jerk reaction to the deletion of a tweet made by the Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari.
The remark in question, which referred to the Nigerian Civil War, was banned by Twitter for breaking its policy on addressing mass killings, violent events, or particular means of violence when protected groups have been the targets or victims.
This is not the first time the government has sought Internet restriction. It had gone the expected legislative route in 2019 with the “social media bill”, which was outrightly rejected by Nigerians.
The bill is officially titled “Protection from Internet Falsehoods and Manipulations and Other Related Matters Bill 2019” and prescribes a ₦300,000 ($730) fine or a jail term of up to three years for persons spreading false information or that which could affect the nation’s security and relationship with other countries.
Because it was regarded to be a gag on citizen’s right to freedom of expression as provided in the Constitution, it received a lot of anger from the Nigerian public. As of press time, the bill has not proceeded farther than the second reading stage.
So far, comments on Techpoint Africa have centered on the economic effects, a hypothetical Internet firewall, and security risks emerging from the use of VPN. However, this debate will evaluate the legal difficulties behind the government’s decision.
Our interview with three lawyers — Co-founder, Tech-Hive Advisory, Ridwan Oloyede; Lead Advisor, Lawrathon, Enyioma Madubuike; and Tech Lawyer and Policy Consultant, Timi Olagunju, — is outlined below.
Is the prohibition legal?
All three lawyers agree that the ban is illegal.
According to Oloyede, the prohibition is “an attack and restriction of the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution and other international human right norms that Nigeria is a party to.”
This right to freedom of speech as enshrined in Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides for freedom to hold an opinion and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
A 2016 United Nations (UN) resolution on the promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet ensures the preservation of human rights — specifically, freedom of expression — offline and online. A resolution certified by Oloyede to have been backed by Nigeria.
Other international treaties which expressly allow for this right include the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedom, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which Nigeria is a signatory to.
To put all of this in context, the Constitution is recognized as the “grundnorm” of all legislation in Nigeria. The law from which all other laws, rules, and directives draw their legality. If any of these in any way diverge from the spirit of the Constitution, it cannot stand.
As Olagunju puts it, these international treaties/conventions are aimed to encourage rather than restrict this freedom. The sole criterion for restriction is where it is specifically provided for by law or as a matter of national security, public order, or the reputation of others. This is also stated in Section 45 of the Constitution.
According to Oloyede, the prerequisites for derogating from human rights under the constitution were not met.
“An executive decision cannot be deemed a law reasonably justified in a democratic society. As we speak, there is no legislation from the National Assembly restricting the use.”
As Madubuike puts it, “There are processes available for activities that might damage citizens’ rights; this unilateral action has been done without any due process. None.”
Other elements to consider under this topic involve the pronouncement made by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, which effectively orders the prosecution of anyone seen using Twitter.
Nigerian law plainly indicates that no one can be tried for a crime that is unknown to law.
According to Madubuike, “Tweeting is not a crime. The fact that a minister says differently does not make it so. Crimes are created by particular laws passed by Parliament, not by declaration of a Minister. We are still a constitutional democracy despite all appearances otherwise.”
NBC, Ministry of Information and Culture, and its powers
The NBC, by virtue of its founding Act, has regulatory powers in relation of broadcasting. This means that its purview is in regard to television and radio firms. This put the Commission under the supervision of the Ministry of Information and Culture, headed by Mohammed.
Therefore, in the context of Mohammed’s pronouncement, it seems he may have overstepped his bounds.
Olagunju attributes the powers exercised by the MInister as likely being under the umbrella of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) as an agency with an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) framework under the purview of the Ministry for Communication and Digital Economy.
He also adds that the order on OTT and social media licences might be a back door to enacting the social media bill, which must be looked at in light of the National Assembly’s oversight powers in that regard.
Other legal difficulties which have been highlighted include the use of films and photos received from Twitter as evidence in court. Both Oloyede and Olagunju agree that the Evidence Act of Nigeria is more concerned with the significance of the evidence rather than its source.
Thus, a defense of a Twitter ban in such a case would not suffice.
What we may have to worry about is the Judiciary’s role and independence. Ordinarily, Nigeria practises the idea of separation of powers which, as Oloyede says, implies the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature are independent bodies.
Several organisations such as the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have made public their intentions to challenge the validity of the ban in court.
While we know the ban is illegal, it is now up to the courts to give a judgement.
Courses and Certification
Telecommunications Course and Certificate
Telecom Billing Course and Certificate
Information Security and Cyber Law Course and Certificate
Internet/Cyber Security Course and Certificate
Computer Security Course and Certificate
Social Media Marketing Course and Certificate
Twitter Marketing Course and Certificate
