Minister of Defence, Mansur Dan-Ali, recently directed the nation’s security agencies to monitor the social media communications of notable Nigerians, to check the problem of hate speeches in the country. The minister gave the directive at a meeting of the National Security Council presided over by President Muhammadu Buhari in Abuja on January 25. He also revealed that the Armed Forces was working with other security agencies through the sharing of intelligence and holding of joint operations to address the country’s security challenges.
The danger posed by unbridled propagation of hate speeches in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria is real. It is not in doubt that the continuing deployment of inflammatory speeches in the country can lead to a nation-wide crisis, if not a conflagration. These hateful communications are injurious to the polity and the corporate existence of the country.
However, we do not believe that the monitoring of the social media communications of notable Nigerians, as directed by the minister, is the solution to this problem. Such monitoring verges on trespass of the privacy of the persons concerned, ultimately, a censorship of the media. Such trespass is antithetical to the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the constitution and enjoyed by all Nigerians.
For instance, Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly states 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 of the Government to the people.” Similarly, Section 39 (1) of the same constitution states that “every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
Against the background of these constitutional provisions, the minister’s instruction is an undue abridgement of the rights of the people to the privacy of their communications and the freedom of the press. The minister swore to an oath to uphold the provisions of the constitution, including Sections 22 and 39 (1). What he intends to do cannot be allowed in a democratic dispensation. By monitoring the social media of influential Nigerians, the government would be veering towards turning the country into a police state.
Nigeria must keep in mind that the Arab Spring was, apart from the prevailing socio-economic conditions, caused by the infringements of the liberty and freedom of citizens of the affected country. There is no doubt that the freedom of the people is priceless and, therefore, should not be trampled upon by government. The government, in designing its policies, must bear in mind that we are in a civilian administration and not a military regime.
The proposed monitoring of the social media of some Nigerians is surprising. We enjoin the minister to drop the idea because it is obnoxious, undemocratic, unconstitutional and illegal. We hope that this is not a veiled attempt to gag the vibrant Nigerian press and, unwittingly, mortgage the conscience of the people. This government that came to power on the mantra of change must resist the pressure to monitor, control or muzzle the media.
Doing so will slow our march to an enduring democratic culture. Apart from retarding the progress made so far on press freedom, it will send wrong signals to lovers of democracy in Nigeria, Africa and the world over. We recall that the attempt by the colonial powers to muzzle the press in the country did not work. There is no way it will work now. Such infringement can be overlooked in a military regime but certainly not under a civilian administration.
The government should clearly define what it means by hate speech so that citizens can desist from it. Extant Nigerian laws have remedies for slander, libel and defamation of character, which can address the minister’s concerns. Let those who feel that they have been slandered, libeled or defamed seek redress through the law courts.