The
foremost civil Rights advocacy group – HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF
NIGERIA (HURIWA) has warned the federal government to desist from its sinister
plots to undermine freedom of speech under the guise of attempting to regulate
social media.
HURIWA
has for the umpteenth time called for the immediate release of the publisher of
Sahara reporters and the political activist Mr. Omoyele SOWORE and his
supporters currently being detained and persecuted only for attempting to
ventilate their righteous indignation over the bad state of governance of
Nigeria. HURIWA said the continuous detention of these journalists and activists
and their illegal persecution since three months now paints Nigeria graphically
as a banana republic and a laughing stock of the World. "It is shameful
that the government can lock up activists and journalists only for expressing
dissenting views and the President still globetrot in the name of a civilian
President of a constitutional democracy.
This is a joke taken too far. These Nigerians should be freed and
allowed to freely express their opinions within the bounds of the law as
provided for under the relevant provisions that protect Free Speech. Now the
media practitioners and activists face deadly threats from the Central
government and their intolerant and primitive supporters."
In
the thinking of the human rights body, the series of media campaigns of calumny
and persistent demonization of the social media waged by Alhaji Lai Mohammed
the information minister who is hiding under the nebulous pursuit of defending
the so-called national security interests of Nigeria but is clearly engaged in
an undemocratic initiative that is nothing short of an act of active coup
attempt to whittle down the unfettered enjoyment of the constitutionally
guaranteed fundamental freedoms chief amongst which is the freedom to freely
express opinions by citizens within the bounds of the law. HURIWA wonders why
the minister of information is being allowed to waste public resources and time
waging a war against free speech and the Social media when it is clear that the
nation already have more than enough legal frameworks regulating the use of
social media including the Cybercrimes Prevention Act which was signed into law
in 2015.
HURIWA
said there was indeed no need for the Nigerian government to bother Nigerians
with persistent threats to undermine their freedom of speech since the social
media platforms are already self over regulated. The Rights group said since
Nigeria's Constitutional democracy is patterned after both the American and
United Kingdom's political systems it therefore follows that Nigeria must
operate under the same frameworks of Freedoms of Speech or Free Speech which
has been unambiguously explained and ruled upon by the highest court in America
and which are cited in many jurisdictions as jurisprudential references ".
“It
is notorious that the most popular platforms of the social media in use by
millions of Nigerians namely Facebook,
tweeters and whatsapp which are controlled and operated by virtually a
well regulated company that has already installed proactive devices for
flagging hate messages and violent language in use by any of their clients cannot
therefore be regulated additionally without offending the plethora of
fundamental freedoms and fundamental right provisions enshrined in the grund
norm of the Country. Why the undue fixation and hysteria by information
minister of Nigeria over his so-called programme of regulating the social
media?”
“We
think the current administration has more to gain by not wasting public fund
acquiring spying devices to undermine social media communications by the Nigerian
citizens which goes against chapter four of the constitution and is a direct
affront to section 14(2)(c) which provides that “the participation by the
people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions
of this constitution” even as 14(2) states thus: “sovereignty belongs to the
people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all
its powers and authority.”
HURIWA
which also states that the plots to scuttle the enjoyment of the freedom of
expression which is what the planned government’s regulation of the social
media represents directly violates section 22 of the constitution that clearly
provides that: “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass
media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained
in this chapter and uphold the
responsibility and accountability to the government and to the people.”
“The
plot to undermine unfettered access to the social media will drive citizens
nursing grudges and discontents underground and this style will lead to fascism
and eventually snowballed in to civil disobedience and violence in an
uncontrollable scale because it is humanly impossible to beat a child and then
try to stop him from crying.”
“Lai
Mohammed should be told that his anti-democratic agenda against social media
goes against everything that constitutional democracy represents because
democracy without free speech is nothing but totalitarianism.”
“Among
other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The
U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes
protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and
symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First
Amendment protections, or not.”
“The
First Amendment states, in relevant part, that: Congress shall make no
law...abridging freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right: A) Not
to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West
Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). B) Of students to
wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their
constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker
v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). C) To use certain offensive words and
phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen
v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). D) To contribute money (under certain
circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). E) To advertise commercial products and
professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia
Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v.
State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). F) To engage in symbolic speech,
(e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas
v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310
(1990).” HURIWA further stated that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of Nigeria
has already criminalize certain speeches that could be deemed as offensive to
public good and therefore any additional regulations against the use of social
media will directly infringed on those constitutionally protected human rights.
Besides,
HURIWA cited several other provisions in chapter four of the Constitution which
will be violated if Lai Mohammed succeeds in undermining the use of social
media and these are: Section 38(1): “Every person shall be entitled to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion
or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public
or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship,
teaching, practice and observance.”
Also,
Section 39(1): “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression,
including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and
information without interference.” And then any attempt to restrict the access
to the Social media amounts to curtailing the freedom of Assembly and Association
because the Social media platforms are now the global villages and these rights
are constitutionally guaranteed thus: Section 40: “Every person shall be
entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular
he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other
association for the protection of his interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment