Contents
Here is a curated All You need to know about Hate Speech and Social Media Bill in Nigeria. We will be researching and giving you all round what you need to know about hate speech and Social media regulation.
We made a post of Nigeria Government precisely by the Honourable Minister of Information and Culture Alhaji Lai Mohammed of being set for Social Media Regulation Read thus here
Now let’s start with Hate Speech
Hate Speech Bill
The bill proposes that any person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and or visual which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person or person from such an ethnic group in Nigeria.
– According to the bill, any person who commits this offence shall be liable to life imprisonment and where the act causes any loss of life, the person shall be punished with death by hanging.
**Ethnic hatred means hatred against a group of persons from any ethical group indigenous today Nigeria.
– On Ethnic Discrimination, the bill penalises a person who discriminates against another person if, on ethnic grounds, the person without any lawful justification treats another Nigerian citizen less favourably than he treats or would treat other person from his ethnic or another ethnic group and/or that on grounds of ethnicity.
*Harassment on the basis of ethnicity
– The bill says a person is guilty of ethnic harassment if he justifiably engages in a conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating that other person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the person subjected to the harassment.
– A person who subjects another to harassment on the basis of ethnicity commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to an imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, or to a fine of not less than N10 million, or to both.
*Ethnic or racial contempt
– The bill stipulates that any person who knowingly utters words to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence.
– The offender shall be liable on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than five years, or to a tune of not less than N10 million, or to both.
*Commission
According to the bill, a corporate body known as the Independent National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech will be established. The commission will be capable of suing and be sued.
The commission will also be capable of:
– Purchasing or otherwise acquiring, holding, charging or disposing of movable and immovable property,
– Borrowing or lending money; and
– Doing or performing all other things or acts for the furtherance of the provision of the bill.
*Functions
Some functions of the bill include:
– To promote a harmonious peaceful co-existence within the people of all ethnic groups indigenous to Nigeria by ensuring the elimination of all forms of hate speeches in Nigeria, and to advise the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on all aspects thereof.
– Without prejudice, promote the elimination of all forms of hate speeches against any person(s) or ethnic group indigenous to Nigeria.
– Discourage persons, institutions, political parties and associations from advocating or promoting discrimination or discriminatory practices through the use of hate speeches.
– Promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance of diversity in all aspects of national life and encourage full participation by all ethnic communities in social, economic, cultural and political life of other communities;
– Promote respect for religions, cultural, linguistic and other forms of diversity in a plural society;
– Investigate complaints of ethnic or racial discrimination and make recommendation to the Attorney-General, the Human Rights Commission or any other relevant authority on the remedial measures to be taken where complaints are valid;
– Make recommendations to the Government on any issue relating to ethnic affairs including whether ethnic relations are improving;
*Power to summon witnesses
The bill recommends that the commission shall have power to summon witnesses and call for the production of books, plans and other documents and to examine witnesses and parties on oath.
It also states that every person summoned to attend and give evidence or produce books, plans or other documents at any sitting of the commission shall be bound to obey the summons served upon him as if such summons were issued by the High Court, and shall be entitled to like expenses as a summoned to attend the High Court on a criminal trial.
*Complaints
The bill allows for aggrieved persons to complain to the commission by lodging a written complaint to it by hand, facsimile or other electronic transmission or post, setting out the alleged contravention.
The bill however, allows the commission to decline to entertain some complaints where:
– The commission considers that a complaint(s) is ferrous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance;
– the complaint involves subject matter that would be more appropriately dealt with by a court;
– it involves subject matter that has been adequately dealt with by a court; or
– it relates to an alleged contravention of the Act that took place more than 12 months before the complaint was lodged, the Commission may decline to entertain the complaint by notifying the complainant and the respondent in writing within forty five (45) days after the day the complaint was lodged.
*Investigations
The bill further states that if the commission becomes aware of circumstance(s) where a contravention of the provision(s) of the Act may have occurred (other than an alleged contravention that is the subject of proceedings before the Commission), the commission may initiate investigation.
The commission is also allowed to extend its investigation on a matter when necessary.
If the commission, after investigation, is satisfied that a person has contravened a provision of the Act, the commission shall make all reasonable endeavor to conciliate that matter, it says.
*The Federal High Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences under the Act.
[IT_EPOLL id=”21447″][/IT_EPOLL]
Senator who sponsored ‘hate speech’ bill says he’s received threats
The senator who reintroduced the bill that seeks to penalise hate speech claims he has been receiving threatening messages after the first reading of the bill.
Aliyu Abdullahi said this during a press briefing in Abuja on Monday.
He, however, said he is not a coward and will not back down from his decision to push for the law.
The National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill was reintroduced in the Senate on November 12.
It prescribes the death penalty for anyone found guilty of spreading falsehood that leads to the death of another person.
A similar bill was introduced to the Senate in March 2018 for consideration and passage. It, however, did not make it through to third reading.
The reintroduction of the bill has generated controversies among Nigerians.
Some civic groups and political parties have kicked against the bill because of its narrow and unclear definition of what constitutes hate speech.
A former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, has also cautioned Nigerian senators against passing the bill.
Although Mr Abdullahi did not state the kind of threats he has been receiving, he vowed not to “shy away from his responsibility.”
“Like somebody wrote to me, over the past ten days or so since the bill was read for the first time, I have received all kinds of messages some even including threats. But I am not bothered about that. In all of these, if I receive one commendation, it gladdens my heart and I did receive many commendations and one stood out and said there is so much hate in this country. We must check it.
“If you meet those who have lost their loved ones arising from religious or ethnicity, intolerance, and the like, I don’t think they will be smiling with you when you tell them hate speech is nonsense or does not exist. They have felt, seen and are living as victims of hate speech,” he said.
Explaining why the bill was not passed in the eight Senate, Mr Abdullahi said he did not pursue the bill because at the time the political atmosphere was already getting charged after the first reading of the bill.
“I reckon in my thinking that the atmosphere was not right for even debating the subject matter because, at the end of the day, we will be missing the point. So I did not pursue it.
“On assessing the reason why I introduced the bill in the 8th senate in the first instance, I have seen that these reasons are not abated. If anything, they are actually assuming a life of their own. So I decided that this bill be reintroduced and it was on the 12th of this month.”
The lawmaker said when laws are put in place and no offence is committed, those laws become redundant.
He said he has taken the opportunity to take on a very critical subject matter yet some people have turned him into a monster.
“They will demonise me, I am not moved because this is the subject of life and no one buys life in the market. Nobody came with a spare.”
Bill not for Buhari’s third term agenda
The Acting Senate Spokesperson, Godiya Akwashiki, also said that the bill was not a collaboration between the Senate and President Muhammadu Buhari to run for a third term.
He referred to a comment by the National Legal Adviser of the Peoples Democratic Party, Emmanuel Enoidem, who said the bill is insulting to the country.
“It is the right of the senator to sponsor a bill tagged ‘private senator bill’ even if we have executive bill. But the hate speech bill before the senate is a private senator bill.
“Mr President has nothing to do with this issue. It has nothing to do with a third term agenda. It has nothing to do with islamising this country. Spokesmen of political parties should mind the way they speak. We should be peace lovers and peace keepers,” he said.
He also said there is nothing for Nigerians to be afraid of in the hate speech bill.
“The bill was just read for the first time, it will go back for the second reading and you and I have the opportunity to speak for or against the bill. Why are we afraid of the bill? When a bill comes to the National Assembly, it is not every aspect that will be taken, it depends on what you and I present during the public hearing.” Via Premium Times
HATE SPEECH BILL SEEKS JUSTICE FOR ALUU 4, OTHERS – SENATOR ABDULLAHI ***DEATH PENALTY, OTHER PUNITIVE TERMS VERY OPEN TO AMENDMENTS
The Deputy Whip of the Senate, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, has said the Anti-hate Speech Bill presently before the National Assembly seeks to ensure justice for Nigerians who are victims of hate speech contrary to widespread speculations. In a statement he issued in Abuja on Monday, the lawmaker explained that the bill would ensure justice for Nigerians who were wrongfully accused and killed. Abdullahi disclosed that the lawmakers were already working in agreement to see that adjustments are made to the death penalty and other punitive terms contained in the bill.
The Senate’s Deputy Whip, who recalled the brutal murder of Tekena, Lloyd, Ugonna and Chidiaka in 2014, said the University of Port-Harcourt students were victims of hate speech. According to him, the bill if passed into law without a death penalty would ensure justice for the victims and their families by ensuring that the perpetrators face the weight of the law accordingly. He added that the proposed bill seeks to protect the lives of Nigerians against undue manipulations by mischievous elements in society. The lawmaker debunked insinuations that the bill was targeted at giving President Muhammadu Buhari Administration a third term in office, describing the insinuation as a smear campaign by political merchants who do not wish Nigeria well. Abdullahi also bemoaned the increasing rate of suicides and depression among Nigerian youths, attributing the development to societal values which breed intense hate.
He, however, stated that the death penalty for anyone found culpable of using hate speech that leads to the death of another, is an aspect that will be subject to an amendment when the bill is eventually considered and goes through a public hearing. “The death penalty is not definite like some Nigerians are making it seem. In the National Assembly, bills go through legislative processes. The concerns on the death penalty are genuine and will be amended accordingly. During these processes, amendments are made to fine-tune the bill in meeting with existing realities. “Therefore, the hate speech bill will go through these processes to ensure Nigerians get the best out of the proposed bill,” Senator Abdullahi said. “If passed, the bill will ensure justice for Nigerians who are silent victims of hate speech. As we speak, statistics show that so many Nigerians are depressed and suicidal.
This is as a result of the way our society is presently wired. “We live in a hate-filled society in Nigeria and need an existing law to address this. In Kenya, they found the need to address the associated Ills of hate speech and they are now better for it with the introduction of laws in that direction. “In 2014, if you recall, four university of Port Harcourt students were unjustly murdered in cold blood as a result of hate speech. So many others have died as a result of wrong accusations. It is time to put a stop to these gruesome killings through hate speech,” Abdullahi said. Via National Assembly
After Immense Pressure, Senate Removes Death Penalty From Hate Speech Bill
ollowing public outcry and pressure over the National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches bill, the Nigerian Senate has removed the death penalty as punishment for anyone found guilty of the bill.
Sponsor of the controversial Hate Speech Bill, Senator Sabi Abdullahi, in a statement on Sunday said the Senate would amend the bill during legislative input by the National Assembly.
While many Nigerians continued to criticise the bill, it was revealed that Abdullahi plagiarised the title and most of the content of the bill from the ‘Protection from Internet falsehood and manipulations bill 2019’, which was recently signed into law by the Government of Singapore.
“We have followed closely arguments for and against the hate speech bill, and seen the reason why some kicked against it.
“Given the high respect which we have for Nigerians, we will make amendment to the death penalty aspect that most Nigerians objected to, so that a bill that meets their expectations is passed into law.
“Clearly from the conversations, Nigerians agree that we have a problem in the society today as a result of hate speech which has fuelled so many killings and violence, and is responsible for cases of depression and suicides,” the statement reads partly.
Abdullahi noted that an Independent National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech would be established, adding that the commission would have executive chairperson, a secretary and 12 commissioners appointed through rigorous process involving the National Council of State, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the National Assembly.
He added that the overall concern is to curb violence and unnecessary loss of lives and livelihoods of Nigerians due to hate-induced violence. Via SaharaReporters
Social Media Regulation
A website we tracked have since wanted the Social media to be regulated and these following information was curled.
Social media companies must be accountable to the democracies that make their businesses possible.
Major technology companies- such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, SNAP and others- define the information ecosystem in much of the world. Hardly regulated and hardly accountable, these companies are completely transforming the public sphere.
While these platforms present new opportunities to connect people around the world, they also create attack surfaces for bad actors that wish to spread misinformation, encourage terrorism, engage in online harassment, steal personal data, restrict free speech and suppress dissent.
The age of unregulated social media must end. But bad regulation could cause its own problems. Now is the time to have these discussions- before we end up with misguided rules, and before it is too late. Across the country, on university campuses, at industry conferences, and other public forums, we urgently need to frame and debate these issues.
Here are three areas to explore:
1. Greater transparency to governments and independent researchers
Right now, the technology companies operate with little scrutiny. It’s crucial that there is more transparency–both to government and to independent researchers who can help society to understand the consequences of these vast new communications platforms. This means access to data and to systems. This is complicated, but it is necessary if we are to ensure these technologies are, at the very least, a net benefit to society going forward. Conversations should center around how to create frameworks and mechanisms that provide for such scrutiny. University researchers, for instance, can serve as a powerful partner to governments and technology companies in understanding these platforms and how society uses them.
2. Accountability and transparency to citizens
Citizens need to know how these platforms operate how they shape user experiences, and what the companies are doing with user data.
Further, citizens should have the right to know when the technology companies make a mistake, or when breaches occur such as the Russian election interference campaign in 2016 or the recently announced theft of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica. How to regulate such disclosures and what should be required in the form of robust consumer protections is an area ripe for discussion.
3. Responsibility for addressing social costs
Facebook’s market cap, for instance, isn’t far from that of ExxonMobil. Any company that has reached such scale produces some form of pollution or other negative social costs. Often, regulators seek to make industry pay for it. While Google and Facebook have each invested in some initiatives designed to address these kinds of externalities– particularly their impact on the news media- clearly much more is needed. Governments should explore the appropriate levy and/or penalties to place on these technology companies, and what types of activities to finance to remediate negative social costs.
[IT_EPOLL id=”21452″][/IT_EPOLL]
Interview by
- Abdulquadri Toyeeb, Kwara State University, Malete.
Social media have made tremendous impacts on human communication but the great threats it poses to fundamental laws and culture of society raises the question of whether it fits for purpose or not. The rising problems of fake news, misinformation, hate speech, invasion of privacy, among others give cause for concern. Time and again, the United States’ lawmakers have summoned the key drivers of internet technology such as Facebook and Google to address these problems. Across the globe, government is not complacent on the ‘erosion of civility’ on these platforms.
In Nigeria, the federal government is fully prepared to take the bulls by the horns as echoed in the words of the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed. The senate appears poised to pass the Protection from the Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill into law as quickly as possible.
While the Nigerian government may not have the power to hold the tech companies accountable, it aims to set the boundaries for social media users whose ambitions are to ignite hatred, propaganda, and violence by spreading misinformation and disinformation on the platform.
However, this hard-lined approach of the federal government has sparked public debate with considerable opposition. There is a growing suspicion that the federal government is on a mission to tamper with the people’s right to freedom of expression due to its records of hostility to the opposition. Those who disagree assert that it is a mechanism to censor contents considered unfriendly to the government of the day.
But some reasons point to the contrary and make it important to have a social media environment that is properly under check. In this digital age, unregulated social media equals a lawless and fragile society that can break up easily. It is no longer news that terrorist groups, ethnic bigots, politicians and the likes use social media to provoke violence. The Cambridge Analytica data scandal in the US, Christchurch massacre in New Zealand that was viewed live on Facebook by millions of people and the clone rumour of President Muhammadu Buhari amplified through social media are few examples. The social media environment need to be policed to enforce orderliness and keep it safe. It is the key responsibility of the tech companies as well as government to provide the mechanism for this to happen.
If the traditional media which are largely controlled by professionals are under regulation, why should we not regulate social media that has far-reaching effect on the public? The internet providers have admitted that the overwhelming amount of information that go online makes it impossible to effectively police harmful content. Hence, the need for government intervention.
Besides, it is counterproductive if the contents that dominate social media do not reflect the true ideals of our society. We need a media environment that will tolerate pluralism of ideas, thoughts, and opinions but we must draw the lines in the sand to safeguard our culture and democracy from destruction.
Overall, the government mustn’t deviate from the real reasons behind the planned regulation which is to solve problems such as fake news and hate speech. It should not introduce instrument(s) that will breach the right to freedom of speech as obtainable in an authoritarian regime like China. Otherwise, the arguments against the planned regulation need to be considered.
SOCIAL MEDIA BILL EXPLAINED
For purposes of clarity, it’s important to state that there are actually two bills out there agitating the minds of social media users in Nigeria at the moment.
There is the ‘Hate Speech Bill’ and the ‘Social Media Bill’. Both bills are not one and the same, even though they have been conflated in discourses on the internet.
The hate speech bill, otherwise called the ‘Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill’ is being championed by Sen. Sabi Abdullahi (APC, Deputy Chief Whip), while the social media bill, otherwise called the ‘Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill’ is the brainchild of Sen. Mohammed Sani Musa.
There are allegations that the bills have been plagiarized from similar pieces of legislation in Singapore and elsewhere, but we’ll pass for now.
This explainer dwells on the bill sponsored by Musa (APC, Niger East) and no more.
The social media bill passed the second reading on the floor of the senate on Wednesday, November 20, 2019; which means it’s well on its way to becoming law, seeing as it is only one more reading and assent by the executive, away.
What will this bill achieve if it becomes law?
Musa says his bill will not gag social media users should it become law as is being propagated. He also says his piece of legislation only seeks to check the spread of fake news and falsehood.
He cites the ‘Jubril from Sudan’ saga and tale as one reason why he’s doing this.
According to Musa: “One of the disadvantages of the internet is the spread of falsehood and manipulation of unsuspecting users.
Today, motivated by geopolitical interest and identity politics, state and non- state actors use the internet to discredit government, misinform people and turn one group against the other.
“The hoax about the demise of President Muhammadu Buhari in London and his purported replacement by one Jubril of Sudan, among others, are things that threaten the peace, security and harmony of our people.”
Penalty for defaulters goes up to N300,000 for individuals and up to N10 million for corporate organisations and imprisonment of up to three years or both.
“It also issues guidelines for internet intermediaries and providers of mass media services and sanctions for offenders,” the lawmaker says.
The bill has 36 clauses which we shall carefully explore when the legislation becomes public and is readily available.
Which senators spoke against the bill and which senators are in support?
Senators Ibrahim Gobir, Abba Moro and Elisha Abbo vehemently supported the bill during plenary this week.
Senator Chimaroke Nnamani (Enugu East) was the only senator who opposed the bill on the floor of parliament when it came up for debate.
According to Nnamani, the bill is completely unnecessary because some of its provisions have been taken care of in the Cyber Crime Act signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan.
“I not only oppose this bill, I condemn it in its entirety. Based on our constitution, there is freedom of information and freedom of speech.
“There is a Cyber Crime Act that deals with this issue. There are also laws that deal with false information, libel, slander and so on.
Yes, fake news has done a lot in America and other countries but they have not brought any law to deal with it. I, therefore, oppose this bill,” Nnamani said.
After listening to both sides of the argument, Senate President Ahmad Lawan, put the debate to a voice vote. Majority of the senators went with Musa.
Lawan would then refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Human Rights which will conduct a public hearing with stakeholders and report back after four weeks.
Dozens of protesters on Wednesday marched to the National Assembly complex in Abuja.
The protesters demanded that the Senate drop the bill it is considering to regulate social media in Nigeria.
During the protest, a policeman, Adiogu Eyinnaya, seized the camera of a journalist who came to cover the protest.
The protesters started the march at a section of the National Assembly gate when another set moved in through the left flank of the gate.
A policeman closed in on them saying, “Go back. You are not part of this protest. We don’t know you.”
“No. They are Nigerians. They have the right to protest,” came the response of one of the protesters.
It appeared this did not go well with the policemen who were already closing in on the procession in their numbers.
While this was on, the journalist, Mr Busayo, who works for RootsTV, filmed.
Mr Eyinnaya, who cut the frame of the most senior of the police officers, whipped the journalist’s hand with his baton, and yanked the camera off Mr Busayo’s grip, before seizing it.
As he gripped it, he tried breaking the flex but the journalist prevented him from doing so.
“Why would you be filming the policemen?” he asked, threatening to take him to the security post.
Some of the journalists close by pleaded with him. Others challenged him.
Mr Enyinnaya eventually released the camera.
The protest was still on as at the time of this report.
The protesters are asking the legislators to drop the anti-social media bill which seeks to regulate the use of social media.
They also demand the release of Omoyele Sowore, Abba Jalingo and others who are held against court orders.
Social Media Bill: Senators address protesters, pledge to do what Nigerians want
Dozens of protesters on Wednesday marched to the National Assembly gate to ask the Senate to drop the bill to regulate the social media in Nigeria.
The two senators who addressed the protesters pledged that despite the bill being sponsored by their colleague, the Senate would do the bidding of Nigerians.
The protest started around 9:25 a.m. Wednesday.
Two groups, Take It Back Movement and Concerned Nigerians, championed the protest.
Asides the primary demand of the Senate stepping down the social media and the hate speech bills, the protesters also asked the federal government to obey court orders by releasing Omoyele Sowore and other journalists who are held for critiquing state authorities.
They hoised placards which among other inscriptions read: “If you can’t stand the smoke. Get out of the kitchen”, “Only a repressive regime muscles the media”, “#SayNoToSocialMediaBill, we are not in tyranny century”, “If we can’t say what we think, in a democratic society, then it is not democracy”, “Do not gag me”, “Free Sowore”.
The protest began at the left flank of the National Assembly entrance as the protesters with their placards sang songs of solidarity.
They called out the names of each of the 109 senators, chorusing “Shut it down” — referring to the two bills, the social media bill and the hate speech bill.
While addressing journalists, Deji Adeyanju, one of the conveners of the protest, said the action would, henceforth, be frequent.
He said apart from the protests, there would be online actions which would involve sending text messages, calling and sending mails to every senator.
He added that this would be followed by “individual name shaming and picketing. We will assign tasks to different members (of our group) to go to their (the senators) homes. Let their children see what their parents are doing.”
He faulted the decision to adopt Singapore’s version of the same bill. He said the Asian country is not a democratic state.
“No going back. Nigerian is in need of voices of reason, voices of courage, voices of integrity. Not the integrity of someone we all know. These two bills are anti-people bill. They are not necessary. The reason for this is because the Cybercrime Law already has a provision for all of these.”
On his part, another leader of the protest, Henry Shield, also chided the legislators for not adopting “progressive bills” like the healthcare bill of the United States and other bills of note that would address the challenges facing Nigerians.
“We insist that the monstrous social media bill and its evil hate speech counterpart have no place in any democratic society, let alone a fledgling democracy like ours. We believe that the bills are satanic and must be totally withdrawn by the ninth Senate with immediate effect.
“As constituents and citizens alike, we believe that the proposed bills suggest that you lawmakers are anti-people and unwilling to either understand the sufferings of Nigerians or even take any meaningful step to mitigate them.
“We, therefore, hope that you will listen to the unanimous voice of Nigerians that these bills have no place in our democracy and must be forever banished to the trash can.”
Senate to do Nigerians’ bidding – Lawmakers
Uba Sani (APC, Kaduna Central) and Yakubu Oseni (APC, Kogi Central) spoke on behalf of the Senate.
The former reassured Nigerians that the leadership of the National Assembly is open to dialogue. He called on Nigerians to attend the public hearing on the bills, in order to air their views on them. The date of the public hearing has not been fixed.
“The law is not about the 109 senators. It is about Nigerians. Democracy is about free speech, it is about rule of law. That is why their voices are extremely important. That is why we believe that your agitation is valid and also in the best interest of our own county. We are going to certainly work with you on the day of the public hearing.
“I have no doubt in my mind, if Nigerians don’t want these bills, even though they are being sponsored by our colleagues, certainly it won’t escape the public hearing. I can assure you we are going to do whatever is in the best interest of our own country. Whatever Nigerians want is what the 9th Senate would do.
“We are aware of section 24 of the Cybercrime Act and some of us are on the same page with these agitations. We are not guided by any political affiliation. We are guided by the law and concerned about the progress of our own country,” Mr Sani assured.
9th Senate not appendage of Executive
Yakubu Oseni, the Senate Chairman on Cybercrime, also affirmed that no bill would be passed without a public hearing, saying laws made by the legislature are for Nigerians and not the Senate.
He debunked the growing concerns among Nigerians that the 9th Senate is an appendage of the Executive.
The concern was fuelled last week when the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, said whatever President Muhammadu Buhari tables before the legislators is believed to be in the interest of the country and would be passed.
“It is not true. If the Senate President said something, we should always check what he said before he said that. I can quote him verbatim.
“He said he knows that ‘Mr president meant well for Nigerians and that whatever he brings and we know that would better the lots of Nigerians, we will not hesitate to pass it through.’ We’re all here to protect the interests of Nigerians.”
IBB reacts to hate speech bill, reveals plans to tackle originators
Former military President, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, has condemned the Hate Speech Bill, sponsored by Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi.
Babangida declared that nobody can muzzle Nigerians and deny them freedom of speech.
Speaking in his Minna Uphill residence while hosting the National President of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Chief Christopher Isiguzo, Babangida said there was no basis for the bill because no one can deny Nigerians their fundamental rights.
He said: “I am surprised that this bill has resurfaced. There is no basis for this now. We are developing; we should be allowed to develop. If we make mistakes people can be cautioned. If somebody goes off you have the right to call him to say, ‘no, we don’t want this.’
“Unless people are able to express themselves, those in government or in authority will not know what is happening in the country.”
Describing the bill as an “eye service” by the sponsor, Babangida said the death penalty prescribed in the bill was “crude and wicked.”
He said: “If somebody makes hate speech, put him in the gallows and not shoot him. It is crude and out of tune with the 21st-century reality. It could have happened, maybe some 300 years ago, but not now.
The former Head of State promised to join the NUJ and other stakeholders in protesting against the passage of the bill.
“I am with you on this. I will also talk to those of us who could be in a position to bring sanity to bear on some of these things.
“if we had their type of media, I think they should be jailing you all by now.
“But today, the country is better for it,” he said.
Hate Speech Bill: Nigerian editors state position
Editors under the aegis of the Nigerian Guild of Editors on Thursday, kicked against the Internet Manipulations and Hate Speech bills.
The Acting President of the Guild, Mustapha Isah, stated the group’s position in Sokoto State at the opening of the 15th All Nigeria Editors’ Conference (ANEC).
“The Nigerian Guild of Editors is not in support and will never support fake news and hate speech.
“Our members are trained professionally.
“It is true that the social media space, like any other ecoystem, is being abused by some people,” he said.
He, however, said the guild was not in support of any move to “surreptitiously ” curtail press freedom.
Isah also advised government to work with critical stakeholders in the media industry to address the challenges relating to fake news and hate speech.
He said the guild chose the 2019 theme of the conference, “A Distressed Media: Impact on Government, Governance and Society,” with a view to focusing on the media as a business.
Isah added that the theme was also meant “to focus on Nigeria and the sustenance of our democracy because without a robust media, democracy suffers.”
He said the current economic challenges had affected the business of journalism, warning that practitioners must survive first to perform their constitutional responsibility of holding government accountable to the people.
“The constitution gives the media an enormous responsibility of holding governments accountable to the people without providing for us the economic and the constitutional protection to do our duty.
“The media is passing through a tough phase. We are going to survive and we must survive.We will find solutions to our problems,” he said.
According to him, the Nigerian media has a rich history, having been in the forefront in the fight against colonialism and the struggle for democracy.
Isah also commended Gov. Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State for his consistent show of friendship to the media and the guild in particular.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that editors from various media houses across the country are attending the conference.
The First Lady, Hajiya Aisha Buhari has called for the regulation of social media, noting that China with about 1.3 billion people had done so, stressing that many people could not visit their villages on account of fake news broadcasts. She also berated state governors for failing to provide basic social amenities and infrastructure. She said that things were getting out of hand, saying that her husband alone cannot handle the challenges facing the nation and admonished the political leaders to work together to bail the country of out of the challenges.
She spoke on Friday at the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) General Assembly and National Executive Council (NEC) meeting at the National Mosque Abuja, with the theme, “Islam and National Development”. She said, “On this issue of social media, you cannot just sit in the comfort of your house and tweet that the Vice President has resigned. It is a serious issue. If China can control over 1.3bn people on social media, I see no reason why Nigeria cannot attempt controlling only 180m people.”
The Vice President Yemi Osinbajo while formally declaring the conference opened, admonished Nigerians to be their brother’s keeper regardless of their religious affiliation, as all Nigerians are equal. He stated, “It is my view that the weight of ensuring that this country is on the right track is on our leaders. We should be our brother’s keeper no matter the religion. We should always be ready to make sacrifices for one another.
We have religious and tribal tension in this country. Many are beating the drum of ethnic and religious war. We are at a historic juncture of our nation.” The NSCIA President-General and the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III in his opening remarks, said the nation must come together to address its challenges, insisting that girl-child education and the Almajiri phenomenon must be addressed urgently. He also disagreed with the calls for social media regulation, stating that there were laws to deal with the abuse of the platforms. “I have received so many calls on the need to regulate social media.
In Nigeria, there are so many laws that can deal with this issue. “Some people even proposed having a hate speech law. We must accept the outcome of whatever the people decided. After all, people voted for our political leaders. Let us listen to the voices of the people. It is important for us to do the wish of Nigerians,” the Sultan said.
