Stakeholders reject Social Media Bill, tell Senate to forget it

 

The controversial Social Media Bill reportedly suffered major setback on Monday at the Senate.

Stakeholders, at a well-attended public hearing, roundly opposed the bill and asked the Senate to do away with it in the interest of freedom of information.

The Nation reports that apart from the Nigerian Army and the Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs that supported the bill, other participants at the public hearing spoke against it.

The Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, set the ball rolling in his opening address.

The bill titled, “A Bill for an Act to make provisions for the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations and for Related Matters, 2019,” was sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa (APC, Niger East).

According to the sponsor, the Bill seeks to prevent the transmission of false statements in Nigeria, end the financing of online medium that transmits false statements and regulate internet access.

It also proposes that any one guilty of the above is liable to a fine of N300,000 or three years imprisonment or both (for individuals), a fine not exceeding N10 million for (corporate organisations) and same punishment applies for fake online accounts that transmit false statements.

Part of the provisions of the Bill include “Access blocking order” which says that law enforcement agencies may direct the NCC to order disabling of internet access by service providers to defaulters and online location of default.

It also says that the NCC must comply with directive on access blocking.

It says that “An internet access service provider that does not comply is liable on conviction to a fine of not exceeding N10 million for each day during any part of which that order is not fully complied with.”

READ: Social Media Bill: PDP calls for rejection, Oyedepo kicks

Lawan in his remarks described the public hearing as “crucial because the Bill has generated a lot of passion.”

He noted that the passion is not unexpected because the Bill relates to the Internet that has “become central to our lives, as it has reshaped how we live, work and how we interact.”

He said that the Senate’s eventual position on the Bill will be partly dependent on the committee’s report.

He added: “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.

“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.

“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.

“The Senate’s eventual position will be partly dependent on the Committee’s report.”

Chairman Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele in his opening remarks said that National Assembly will not shy away from making laws for the order and good governance of the country.

Bamidele said, “We are aware of the controversy generated by the Bill, which has continued to subsist. It is the interest that the Bill has generated that made the Committee to resolve to conduct this public hearing to collate stakeholders’ views.”

Civil Society Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that stoutly opposed the Bill included the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Media Organizations, Concerned Nigerians.

Others are Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), Center for Democracy and Development (CDD), Amnesty International (AI), Nigeria Law Reform Commission (NLRC) and DAAR Communications.

Executive Director PLAC, Clement Nwankwo in his contribution said that the Bill is completely unnecessary “because we already have legislations that address most of the issues contained in the Bill.”

Nwankwo said, “Basically this Bill seeks to infringe on human rights and it is the position of PLAC that this committee should entirely discountenance the Bill.

READ: Obasanjo says Nigeria needs new constitution, restructuring

“With laws even existing right now, a lot of us who experience security agencies on the roads know the inconveniences and massive violation of human rights that citizens suffer when policemen, security agencies stop citizens on the streets, force them to open their computers, force them to open their phones and extract information without backing of law.

“If this bill was to pass in this National Assembly, we will be forced by security agencies to do much more. There is no way we can compare Nigeria with Iran, Singapore and the rest of them.”

Executive Director, International Press Centre, Comrade Lanre Arogundade, on his own said, “In opposing this Bill my organization would like to remind the sponsor of this Bill and this Senate Committee that Nigerian is a signatory to the African Charter on people’s and Human Rights.

“Nigeria is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a number of other international conventions and declarations that protects the rights to freedom of expression, including freedom of expression online.

“What we are saying is that Nigeria, being party to these international conventions should not embark on a journey that negates the essence and principles of these declarations.”

Executive Vice Chairman, Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), Professor Umaru Dambata who also opposed the proposed legislation said, “Certain provisions of the Bill are difficult to implement since majority of the websites, online media and online locations are hosted outside the shores of this country.