QUESTIONS, MORE QUESTIONS ON THE ANTI-SOCIAL BILL

Nigerian youths protesting at NASS

I must admit it’s been a while; well we’ve been undergoing some restructuring so far and meticulously preparing to resume posting and rolling out our legislative programs from January 1, 2016. While on our recess at Eyes on The Mandate, we have been called upon by our ardent readers to join the executive discussion on the controversial Social Media bill

An Act to Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and Other Matters connected therewith dubbed as “The Anti-Social Media Bill” but I believe it’s more than that. This bill is no doubt trending on all social media platforms, open space discussions and closed door discussions. I want to remind you that at EOTM we are only interested in the technicalities and irregularities of our Legislature, and not interested in the politics behind every action, so as to foster a better civic engagement with our esteemed legislature.

Permit me to begin my analysis with the originator of the bill; In Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah’s words “the bill has no financial implication for the government coupled with the fact that it is very straight forward in nature”. It is so true that the bill is very straight forward and more so, very truthful, that the bill has no financial implication. 

1.  Is that all that makes a good bill?
2.  Is this what necessitates a quick passage?

In my experience and interaction with the bills office, I can say for a fact that a bill is scrutinized and considered on three levels, namely;

1.   Financial implication of the bill
2.   Social implication of the bill
3.   Legal implication of the bill

For some unknown reasons, the Senate has been silent on the social and legal implications of the bill, bearing in mind that our democracy can only thrive on good laws and a robust representation of their constituent’s views while making laws. There are some good piece of legislature that has been jettisoned in recent times by the National Assembly, due to one the aforementioned reasons; social implication on just a section of the country, its heavy financial implications on the Government and its Legal implications. Now, let’s consider the implications of the bill in question.

Section 1&2 of the bill says “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, it shall be unlawful to submit any petition, statements intended to report the conduct of any person for the purpose of an investigation, inquiry and or inquest without dully sworn affidavit in the High Court of a State or the Federal High Court confirming the content to be true and correct and in accordance with the Oaths Act. Any petition and or complain not accompanied by a sworn affidavit shall be incompetent and shall not be used by any government institution, Agency or bodies established by any law for the time being enforced in Nigeria”

Financial Implication:

How much will implementing the bill, if passed, cost Nigeria and Nigerians? The provisions of the bill shows there will be no huge financial obligation for the government to bear during implementation process. Asides the cost of gazette and publishing, I can’t see any major cost implication on the part of the government, but who will pay for the affidavits to be dully sworn?  The last time I checked, an affidavit cost between 500Naira to 1000Naira, in view of the clamor to reduce minimum wage by governors, unemployment at it's peak and dwindling economy, is it wise to add to the burden of the masses by asking them to pay for affidavits before making any statement that may lead to investigation? Or are they invariably saying SHUT UP?

Social Implication:

How does the bill affect the Nigerian social life?  We need no rocket science to prove that this bill is not socially acceptable by the Nigerian public, given the stiff resistance it is currently enjoying. How does this affect our everyday life, in a country where crime rate has increased? In nation where thousands have died because hospitals request police statement before commencing treatment. Hold that thought, and imagine what reality will look like as you ponder on the following questions:

1. How do I report a suspicion? Do I need to take a drive to the High Court, get a dully signed affidavit before proceeding to the police station? Since the suspicion may lead to an investigation
2. How will the police and other agencies discharge their duties? Will they also need to visit the High Court stating that they know for a fact that allegations are true in a dully sworn affidavit?
3.  Even though I have picture evidence of a crime, molestation or bribery, will I still be required to get an affidavit before reporting it?
4. What happens to anonymous tips, whistle blowers, allegations and suspicion? Is it now our job as citizens to investigate a matter, be sure it is true, get a sworn affidavit that it is true, and then report it? What a way to curb unemployment. What are the jobs of relevant agencies and Court then? What are we paying taxes for, if relevant agencies feel there is no more need to investigate and inquire?

Please feel free to ask yourselves more questions. The questions and the ongoing protests strongly suggests that the bill if passed will have a negative social implication and therefore not socially viable.

 Legal Implication:

The bill might also appear to be a repetition of our existing laws, simply because what the bill seeks to achieve are already accommodated by the Nigerian criminal and common law. Though not enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution, it is properly codified in the secondary laws such as the criminal law and common law which derive their powers from the constitution and also rely on past rulings. For better understanding, let’s consider what our existing law says about tort of defamation, libel and slander and their respective definitions by both criminal and common laws.

Tort of Defamation libel and Slander:

According to section 373 of the criminal law “Defamatory matter is matter likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by an injury to his reputation. Such matter may be expressed in spoken words or in any audible sounds, or in words legibly marked on any substance whatever, or by any sign or object signifying such matter otherwise than by words, and may be expressed either directly or by insinuation or irony”  section

375 “subject to the provisions of this chapter, any person who publishes any defamatory matter is guilty of misdemeanor, and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it is false is liable to imprisonment for two years”

376 “any person who publishes, or threaten to publish, or offers to abstain from publishing, or offers to prevent the publication of defamatory, with intent to extort money or other property, or with intent to induce any person to give, confer, procure, or attempt to procure, to, upon, or for, any person any property or benefit of any kind. Is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. The offender cannot be arrested without a warrant.

377 “The publication of defamatory matter is not an offence if the publication is, at the time it is made, for the public benefit, and if the defamatory matter is true” meaning no matter how injurious, insulting or derogatory a statement or petition is, it is not defamation if made for public benefit, or if it’s the truth. Therefore, the defense against a defamation suit is the truth.

Libel and slander are types of defamation. According to common law, Libel is a defamatory statement written or printed in any permanent form such as a book, computer device, electronic document, electronic storage card or device or disk, letter, notice, newspaper, documentary, photography, pictures, images, sculpture, carving, statute, caricature, cartoon, moving cinematography, film, television, radio broadcast, telecommunication text message, cyber or internet communication platforms such as social media, instant messengers etc. while Slander is a defamatory statement expressed through speech or made in transient form.

Here are some more questions;

1. Are the existing laws not strong enough to curb defamation on social media or other platforms? What will a substitute replica law do separately?
2. Is it right to criminalize citizens saying the truth, just because they have no sworn affidavit?
3.  Are there no better ways or more inclusive ways of regulating defamation crimes and enforcing justice?
4. Why does the bill seek to totally set aside pre-existing laws?

As I take my leave from your thoughts, I want to leave you with one last question; is this proposed bill just an anti-social media bill or more? If more, then what is it?

For more information about our defamation laws, kindly look through sections 373 - 381 of the criminal code.