President Buhari has noted that Nigerians are lively and robust in national discourse – something he acknowledged or re-affi rmed from the feedback he got on conversations that ensued while he was away in the United Kingdom for medical care.
But the President also noted that some discussions crossed the ‘National Red Line;’ this, he felt, was intolerable.
Th at Presidential speech has elicited shades of reactions.
Th e reactions are not what I intend to dwell on but the trajectory of events in our country as they impinge on fundamental freedoms.
When the dust of the second world war began to settle; it became clear that if the intrinsic worth of humans is to be recognized and preserved, there has to be a document that is universal and has international appeal.
More interesting is the reality that even when the 2nd World War was being fought, four freedoms were recognized as the basic war aims namely, freedom of speech, religion freedom from fear and freedom from want. That stellar thought birthed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)- a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.
Today, and 69 years later, the United Nations boasts of a membership strength of 193 countries- Nigeria being one of them having joined on 7th October, 1960.
Th e Universal Declaration on Human Rights is binding on all member states.
Th e Nigerian Constitution provides as one of its Fundamental Rights the Right to freedom of Expression and the Press.
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, says section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
While our national grundnorm elegantly presents a fundamental freedom as an inalienable right, our country is also faced with the trouble of how to deal with expressions now infamously referred to as ‘Hate Speech’.
On the 30th of May, 2017, the Nnamdi Kanuled Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB called for a sit in protest and remembrance to make 50 years since the end of the civil war.
Commercial activities were shut down in south-east Nigeria.
Th e IPOB delivered speeches that were exciting if not inciting of a large number of Nigerians and also called for the boycott of Anambra gubernatorial elections scheduled for November 2017.
On 7th June, 2017 a coalition of Arewa youths issued a quit notice calling for Igbos to quit the north by 1st October, 2017.
Th ree days later and precisely on the 10th of June,2017, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) issued their own quit notice to all northerners in possession of oil blocks in the south-south and demanded they cede control by 1st October,2017.
Th ankfully, the Arewa youths have withdrawn their quit notice but the IPOB seem cynical and unrelenting.
Any President who resumes to this melee on his offi cial plate no doubt has some work to do.
One can therefore understand the President’s frustration even if we do not subscribe to his method of addressing the issue.
What many will perhaps have no trouble resisting is the move by the Nigerian Army to regulate the social media.
On 23rd of August,2017, Major-General John Enenche, Director of Defence Information, announced to a bemused nation that the Nigerian Army was set to regulate and monitor activities of Nigerian citizens on social media.
Th e Nigerian Army he said, intends to identify social media users who are peddlers of fake news, hate speech, antigovernment and anti-security information.
When asked how the regulation will work, Enenche revealed that the Army will develop strategic media centres.
“Our strategic media centres will monitor social media channels in order to sieve out and react to all the social media posts that aim to be anti-government, anti-military, and anti-securitybased.
We will tackle them with appropriate responses. Ahead of that, we are also being proactive.
We have measures in place, scientifi c measures, to be able to sieve this information and also alert the public and let them know that this information is not true,” the Major General continued.
Th is move presents a constitutional matter.
Section 217(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides for the role of the Armed Forces when it said: “ Th e Federation shall, subject to an act of the national assembly made in that behalf, equip and maintain the armed forces as may be considered adequate and eff ective for the purpose of- (a) defending Nigeria from external aggression (b) maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its borders from violation on land, sea or air; (c) suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly; and (d) performing such other functions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
In all of the length and breadth of the provision, the duty to regulate speech is not provided for.
Now, there is a serious reason why we need to pay attention to the progression of things in our country: Recently, there was an onerous attempt to clampdown on social media by politicians, next a bill to regulate non-governmental organizations passed its second reading.
Kaduna state was recently declared by the national body of the Nigerian Union of Journalists as the state most intolerable to journalism and free speech after four of their members: Midat Joseph of Leadership, Gabriel Idibia of Union Newspapers, Dickson Onjewu of New Nigeria and Luka Binniyat formerly of Vanguard Newspaper came under persecution.
Th e easiest and shortest route to impeach the liberty of a country is to clamp down on free speech and free press.
Th e need to protect the country from speeches and incidences that will undermine the security of the nation must be counterbalanced by the protection of the fundamental right to free speech which is a basic human right needed especially in this moment where there is a gradual and silent encroachment of democratic ideals.
And the balance is not delicate.
Section 39(2) and (3) of the Nigerian constitution state: 39 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the subsection 91) every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions.
(39(3) provides: Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifi able in a democratic society (a) for the purpose of preventing the disclosure, of information received in confi dence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematographs fi lms; or (b) imposing restrictions upon persons holding offi ce under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law.
Any exception outside the circumference of section 39(3) is therefore to the extent of its inconsistency null and void- no matter how strong the government feels about it.
Th e government can only seek recourse by charging defaulters to court under the penal code or criminal code otherwise the government will itself be the bigger defaulter when it crosses the red line of such signifi cant universal and fundamental right of free speech.
Let me attempt to underscore how serious the Law deems the right to fundamental human rights of which free speech is priority: Th e United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and that the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Th e progression of human rights law has generally been in the direction of according protection to the individuals against their states with the anti-state stance fl owing from the assumption that individual persons must be protected from the abuse of power of parliaments, governments and public authorities.
Th is is because people deserve the right to contend and argue ideas according to conscience.
We cannot, regardless of how scarlet the red lines are, discountenance, undermine or blatantly disregard these rights because of the actions or inactions of a defaulting few or to even use red lines as blanket excuse to keep people from criticizing government; otherwise that will sentence the people to moral treason and remand them to a situation where the people are led like sheep to the slaughter.