Frivolous Petitions bill born to die?

The first provision of the Frivolous Petitions Prohibition Bill being processed by the Nigerian Senate is described as a device to slow down the pace of the mostly young millions of operators who are brimming with energy on the super fast platforms of the social media. The provision Number 1 of the trending social media […]

The first provision of the Frivolous Petitions Prohibition Bill being processed by the Nigerian Senate is described as a device to slow down the pace of the mostly young millions of operators who are brimming with energy on the super fast platforms of the social media.
The provision Number 1 of the trending social media bill reads, “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, it shall be unlawful to submit any petition, statement intended to report the conduct of any person for the purpose of an investigation, inquiry and or inquest without a duly 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.”
The next provision further binds media petitioners to the sworn affidavit ritual. It says, “Any petition and or complaint 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.”
The first section of the third provision recommends punishment to anyone who will go ahead and accuse anyone of any misdoing without first swearing that his accusation is just, charging, “Any person who unlawfully uses, publish or cause to be published any petition, complaint not supported by a dully sworn affidavit shall be deemed to have committed an offence and upon conviction, shall be liable to an imprisonment for six months without an option of fine.”
Provision 3(2) of the Bill for an Act to Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and other Matters Connected Therewith, reads, “Any person who acts, uses, or cause to be used any petition or complaints not accompanied by dully sworn affidavit shall be deemed to have committed an offence and upon conviction, shall be liable to an imprisonment for a term of two years or a fine of N200,000.00 or both.”
“Where any person in order to circumvent this law makes any allegation and or publish any statement, petition in any paper, radio, or any medium of whatever description, with malicious intent to discredit or set the public against any person or group of persons, institutions of government,” the bill states in 3(3), “he shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction, shall be liable to an imprisonment term of two years or a fine of N4m.”
The bill, sponsored by Bala Ibn Na’Allah, the senator representing Kebbi South in the Senate, states in 3(4), “Where any person through text message, tweets, WhatsApp or through any social media posts any abusive statement knowing same to be false with intent to set the public against any person and group of persons, an institution of government or such other bodies established by law shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction, shall be liable to an imprisonment for two years or a fine of N2m or both fine and imprisonment.”
Coming at a time when a huge number of people have become public commentators because they own devices that give them the platforms, and in a huge country such as Nigeria, the bill has since become a subject of massive condemnation.
And the bill is not out for just social media writers. As is evident in 3(3), it also targets people operating in the traditional mass media. So, the opposition to the is coming from a wide array of interests: individuals and groups in the social media community, journalists doing their stuff in the traditional media, rights activists who typically champion the cause that they believe the bill will hurt, and other people of divers callings, including even politicians and people in public offices whom the bill apparently seeks to protect.
Reporters Without Borders, a France-based international non-government organization which defends freedom to be informed and to inform others, said the bill seeks to make a law that will create an insecure environment for reporters and citizen journalists who might be investigating allegations especially against public figures. It basically can prevent investigative journalism from taking place,” the organisation said.
On its part, the World Wide Web Foundation, an NGO formed in the United States in 2009 “to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic right,” said through its Africa regional coordinator Nnenna Nwakanma, that the introduction of any requirement to accompany petitions with affidavits would deny millions of Nigerians their right to highlight inequalities and corruption.
Human Rights Watch, another NGO actively advocating the rights of people in several countries, asked the Nigerian authorities to “focus on the critical issues facing the country, such as the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, communal violence, and corruption, “rather than trying to muzzle non-violent expressions of genuine dissent and criticism.”
The executive arm of the Federal Government has itself questioned the wisdom of the bill. Minister of Information Lai Mohammed had said much earlier, on November 23, that the government did not intend to stifle free speech. “We are not about to regulate or stultify the social media,” the government spokesman said.
President Muhammed Buhari to whom the bill will be referred if it makes its way through both the Senate and House of Representatives, has said he would be unlikely to sign it. “The President won’t assent to any legislation that may be inconsistent with the constitution of Nigeria,” Buhari’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Malam Garba Shehu said in a statement.
The Senate is insisting on going ahead with the bill which has already passed second reading. Dino Melaye, a senator from Kogi State who expresses a deep misgiving against an online medium, Sahara Reporters, after it published a ‘false’ allegation on him and the Senate, said during a session at the Senate that ‘reckless’ statements particularly from online media needed to be checked. “Where it (social media) has become an instrument of blackmail, an instrument of intimidation, an instrument of satanic manifestation, this Senate should not allow it,” Melaye asserted.
Similarly speaking, the Senate majority leader Ali Ndume said people who go online to please themselves at the expense of some other person or persons should be checked. Ndume who nurses a grudge against an online medium for once linking him to the destructive Boko Haram elements, said, “We have a responsibility to make laws that hold people responsible for actions that they take. People should not just publicize anything without being held responsible.”
In the view of the Senate minority leader Godswill Akpabio, the draft bill is intended to ensure that people who exercise their freedom to express their minds do not infringe on the right of other people to be truly represented. “The bill seeks to protect fundamental human rights,” Akpabio declared.
Senate President, Bukola Saraki, sounding tough over the bill last week, asserted that it was crafted both to protect innocent people and institutions from false allegations and to save the image of the social media itself from unscrupulous users. “You can’t write false stories just because it is social media,” Saraki said, as he handed the bill to a committee which may follow it up with a public hearing, after which it may pass to third reading and possibly pushed to the House of Representatives for them to do their part and then qualify it for presidential attention.
Considering the stiff opposition to it, will this bill get that far?