Media regulation bills: The nays have it?
The dust raised in the wake of the introduction of the controversial NPC and NBC (Media Amendment) bills appears to have settled, at least for now, as the bills have been suspended following public outcry. Nigerians woke up on Monday, June 12, to be confronted with front pages of newspapers displaying a human face with […]
Lai Mohammed and Rep Segun Odebunmi
The dust raised in the wake of the introduction of the controversial NPC and NBC (Media Amendment) bills appears to have settled, at least for now, as the bills have been suspended following public outcry.
Nigerians woke up on Monday, June 12, to be confronted with front pages of newspapers displaying a human face with lips gagged by jail cell design and a screaming headline: “Information Blackout.”
The front page advertorial further read: “This is what the National Assembly wants to achieve with the NPC and NBC (Media) Act amendment Bill.”
“It is not just against the media… it’s about society’s right to know, your right to be heard,” it further posited.
The message was endorsed by the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Nigerian Guide of Editors (NGE) and the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN).
The media protest followed the proposed Nigerian Press Council (NPC) and Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) bill before the Federal House of Representatives.
The new bill is tagged: “A Bill for an Act to Amend the Nigerian Press Council Act CAP N128 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1992 to Remove Bottlenecks Affecting Its Performance and Make the Council in Tune with The Current Realities in Regulating Press and For Related Matters.”
Analysts say the bill is aimed at erecting constraints to the exercise of freedom of expression.
Section 39 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
Section 22 of the constitution also provides 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.”
Following the public vitriol that greeted the bill, its sponsor, who is also the Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Information, National Orientation Ethics and Values, Segun Odebunmi, has announced the suspension of the two bills.
Odebunmi, who made the statement while a guest on Channels TV’s Sunrise Daily on Tuesday, explained that the suspension is to allow for more consultations on the bill.
He said critical stakeholders in the industry have been submitting their memorandum on the bill, and that they demanded more time.
“What I am saying is that journalists or the NUJ cannot even gag the process of the National Assembly by saying, ‘no you must drop it.’ That is not the way of doing things,” he said.
The lawmaker admitted that he did not consult anyone while making moves for the bill, which many stakeholders viewed as a move to gag the media.
“Our conclusion is that personally, I am suspending this process for a while for more consultations. That is what I said last week but what I am saying is that the NUJ cannot gag the process of the National Assembly (NASS) by saying we must stop it.
“We have suspended the process for more consultation to happen. They demanded a lot of time and I said no problem. I have given you, even if you spend three to five weeks for more consultation and many people have been bringing memorandum.
“My intention is not to gag the press unless the practitioner can say all is well in the industry.”
“I did not consult with any stakeholders before I came up with the amendment bill, I did not consult with the government. The minister of information got to know about it four days before the public hearing; the public hearing is a platform for consultation. It is already laid down in the rules, “he said.
Earlier on Monday, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, said he would not be a party to any bill that sought to gag media practitioners while responding to the calls to drop the NPC Bill.
“I will not be part of any bill that will seek to gag the press; no bill will come to the floor of the house that seeks to gag the press because the press is supposed to be the voice of the people,” he said.
“However, there is press freedom and there is freedom of expression; it is important for Nigerians to listen to one another and understand each other so that we can make progress as a nation.
“There is nowhere in the world where freedom of expression is absolute; freedom of expression is limited to the extent that it does not affect another person’s freedom.
“That is made abundantly clear in the constitution itself. If you go to Section 45, it states the freedom of expression you have is limited for the sake of security; it is written in black and white.”
After the public hearing on the bill and protests that followed it in June, Odebunmi had insisted that the committee would proceed with the amendment, describing the bill as a government’s baby.
He said the bill was not meant to gag press freedom but to remove bottlenecks retarding the optimum performance of the NPC, as well as sanitise media practice in the country.
He said the NPC amendment bill was initiated with an independent mind to transform and make the council move with the current realities in the media industry.
According to him, the proposal for the establishment of a ‘press code’ as proposed in the bill was to protect and guide the NPC to checkmate and reduce quackery, fake news and tackle promoters of hate speech.
Notwithstanding the foregoing assurance given by the sponsor of the bill, the following controversial clauses in the bill are still of concern to stakeholders in the media industry:
1) The power of the Minister of Information to control the conduct of print media houses and media practitioners; 2) punitive measures for erring media houses, journalists and a National Press Code to be put in place by the council with the approval of the Minister of Information; and 3) registration of print media houses which seeks to criminalize the operations of media outfits that are not registered with the council.
Others are: 4) Criminalization of newspaper vendors such as sub-section 2 of 33 which criminalises vendors that circulate any newspaper, magazine or journal that is not registered with the council, and liable to pay a fine of N250,000 upon conviction and term of one year imprisonment or both; and 5) Penalty for fake news purveyors which seeks to criminalize fake news purveyors.
The proposal places a fine of N10 million or closure of such media houses for a period of one year or both and compensation of N20 million to the person, group, corporate body, government, or any of its agencies, whom the ‘fake news’ was carried against.
Speaking on the now-suspended bill, the executive director of the Centre for China Studies, Charles Onunaiju, said tampering with the NPC and NBC bills would be going too far to take away the remaining democratic item left for the citizens.
He said elsewhere, the press is usually viewed as an early warning mechanism, adding that there is no proof that the press has contributed to the pervasive insecurity, poverty, and lack of inclusion that has created so much division in the polity.
“In my view, it is unnecessary. There is a lot that needs attention and Nigerian media has been taken as one of the most vibrant in the world, but I personally worry about the depth despite the reach and influence,” he said.
“I personally believe that any attempt to curb free expression, any attempt to erect a roadblock on the path of media vibrancy will be turning back the hands of the clock.”
Also reacting, senior fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Prof Jibrin Ibrahim, said it was a good thing that the bill was suspended, adding that it is a sign that the lawmakers are listening to the people.
“Once that bill was submitted there was a lot of concern and outrage by the press because they think it is a way of muzzling the media,” he said.