The federal government has continued to defend its suspension of Twitter saying its (federal government’s) does not constitute any breach of the citizens’ right to information.
The minister of information and culture, Mr. Lai Mohammed stated this in his presentation to the House of Representatives’ joint committees on communications, justice, information and culture; and national security and intelligence.
In as much as the lawmakers described the government’s action as dictatorial, ill-timed and wanted it rescinded, the minister contended that Twitter’s activity in the country violates public interest and negates some provisions of Terrorism Act as well as Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He said the suspension of the micro-blogging social media platform was in line with national and international laws which give Nigeria the power to regulate its cyber space and give all necessary orders designating any computer system, network or application as forming part of its national infrastructure.
The minister further argued that the freedom of expression guaranteed in Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution is not absolute.
“It is true that many Nigerians have accused the Federal Government of an attempt to stifle the media and free speech, and we say not at all. There is absolutely no attempt on the part of government to stifle free speech and the media.
“While it is true that sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the constitution actually provide for freedom of speech, it is actually qualified by Section 45 of the same constitution, which is to the effect that nothing in these sections shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other people.
“The only reason why we suspended the operation of Twitter was because it was promoting disunity in Nigeria and therefore became a national security risk. The provisions of Section 45 of the Constitution leave no one in doubt that the provision of Section 39 of the Constitution on freedom of expression is not absolute. The right of freedom of expression within the contemplation of Section 39 makes it a qualified right in line with Section 45, which permits restriction of civil liberty in the public interest,” he said.
He explained that Section 49 of the same Constitution permits restrictions of civil liberties in the public interest stressing, “public Interest takes precedent over individual interest’’.
“The operations of Twitter in the Nigerian social space is not legally permissible when it is used in airing of information that endangers the life and security of the majority of citizens of Nigeria. (Sic).
“This is in light of the fact that the platform affords IPOB, an organisation already proscribed by the Federal High Court, to champion its seditious and terrorist based activities
“The principles of law are clear on the exercise of personal human rights in the face of national security threats which affects the larger citizen,’’ he said.
Mohammed also argued that the federal government is empowered to take all reasonable steps to defend its cyber space where it perceives or finds that a cybercrime is about be committed or has been committed.
He said both national and international statutes empower the federal government to regulate and promote the security of the Nigerian cyber space, including but not limited to organisation and user’s assets.
“Organisation and user’s assets include connected computing devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services and telecommunications systems.
“It also included the totality of transmitted and/or stored information within the Nigerian cyber-Space/environment including social media such as Twitter, Facebook…, applications, internet platforms, and cloud computing platforms,’’ he said.
Mohammed stressed that where a seditious act has been committed against the Federal Government through the Cyber Space the perpetrators shall be liable.
The minister noted that the right to freedom of expression on the Twitter platform qualified by the provisions of sections 5(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act of 2011.
He said the sections provide that any person who directly or indirectly solicit or render support for commission of an act of terrorism commits an offence liable on conviction to not less than 20 years.
“This includes incitement to commit a terrorist act through the internet or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information”.
Mohammed said the operation of Twitter as business entity in Nigeria without fulfilling the conditions precedent by registering with the Corporate Affairs Commission is illegal.
He said CAMA, the primary law governing businesses in Nigeria, provides that a foreign company must take necessary steps to obtain incorporation as a separate entity before engaging in any business.
“Until so incorporated, the foreign company shall not carry on business in Nigeria or exercise any powers of a registered company as provides in Section 78 (1) of CAMA, 2020.
“Hence, flowing from this background a foreign Company as Twitter cannot be clothed with the legitimate rights to operate as a company registered in Nigeria, as they are not licensed accordingly,’’ he said.
The minister said that the State Security Services (SSS) which provided the lawful basis for the suspension of Twitter acted in line with its power of prevention and detection of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria.
He reiterated government position to the committee that the ban on the operation of the micro blogging platform, Twitter, is in the interest of the country.
The lawmakers, however, faulted some of the issues raised by Mohammed.
Mr. Shaba Ibrahim (PDP/Kogi) said he agreed with the minister that national interest and security were at stake.
He also admitted that Mohammed had done “a very beautiful rendition of the legal framework” that supported the suspension.
Ibrahim, however, said, “Beautiful as it is, I just wonder if in the consideration of that ban, you took into cognizance, the coincidence of Mr. President’s tweet and Twitter’s action, and the impression it created on the minds of millions of Nigerians and indeed the entire world.
“I say this because sometimes there is what you call ‘claim of right made in bad faith.’ You may well have a legal platform upon which to anchor that action but the circumstances are (the reasons) why you have everybody alluding to the (similar) action taken (by Twitter) against (President Donald) Trump.”
“If you have been proactive, with due respect, you wouldn’t have allowed all these infractions to go unchecked, until the president’s tweet was taken down. I think, with all due respect, that was a disservice to us.
“We are at the mercy of people who handle social media irresponsibly. All it took to wake to that responsibility was for Twitter to bring down Mr. President’s tweet. With all due respect sir, I don’t think that was good enough.
“I agree that no right is in absolute terms. But, again, we must mind the timing of it so that proactive actions are taken to nip these things in the bud. Because what you have done, whether you like it or not, looks like symptoms of emerging totalitarianism. And that is why everyone is shouting blue murder.”
Another member, Chinedu Ogar (APC/Ebonyi) asked the minister about the efforts made by regulatory agencies especially the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to address the issues until a tweet by the president was deleted and Twitter banned.
Also, Mr. Olatunji Shoyinka (PDP/Lagos), said, “We have all talked about the disadvantages, but there are advantages of the social media” and slammed the sudden nature of the government’s action.
Another member, Mr. Aniekan Umanah (PDP, Akwa Ibom), asked, “Did we have to wait for Mr. President’s tweet to be taken down before the government came to the realisation that certain things have been going wrong? Did we have to wait for a tweet to be taken down before we rediscovered these laws and all these sections that we have heard from the honourable minister?
“Mr. Minister, my constituents are as unhappy as others in this country and they have asked me to plead on their behalf to the federal government through you to look at these issues.”
Responding to the questions, the minister partly said Twitter was not banned, but suspended.
With NAN, Punch reports
