Social media bill: Online publishers take battle to court

The Senate drafts a bill it says should stop petitions that may not be true but can hurt certain persons and organizations, but online publishers who could become victims of the bill want the court to kill the bill because it offends existing superior laws. Taking its most practical step since the coming of the […]

The Senate drafts a bill it says should stop petitions that may not be true but can hurt certain persons and organizations, but online publishers who could become victims of the bill want the court to kill the bill because it offends existing superior laws.

Taking its most practical step since the coming of the Senate’s social media bill, a section of the online publishing community which identifies itself as Online Publishers Association of Nigeria (OPAN) went to court first week of this month to question the legitimacy of the now infamous bill.
The Senate, working on a bill introduced by one of its own, Sen. Bala Ibn  Na’Allah, seeks to limit the freedom that writers mostly on social media and also in the traditional media could exercise.
Officially termed Bill for an Act to Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and other Matters Connected Therewith, but now derogatively called Anti-Social Media Bill by critics, the bill comes with these provisions:
“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.
“Any petition and or complaints 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.
“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.
“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, 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.
“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.”
The suit of the online publishers, now before the court, hits at those provisions by quoting counter-provisions of Nigeria’s 1999 federal constitution which, the plaintiffs assert, is superior to whatever claim the social media bill could claim.
In the suit dated 6th December, 2015, counsel to the plaintiff (Online Publishers Association of Nigeria), Osuagwu Ugochukwu petitioned the Federal High Court in Abuja to adopt these reliefs:
A declaration that in view of the provisions of Section 39 (1) & (2) of the 1999 constitution (as amended), the Senate cannot lawfully pass into law its bill as currently drafted; a declaration that the passage of the proposed bill will amount to the violation of freedom of expression of publishers as guaranteed under the 1999 constitution; an order of injunction restraining the Senate from further debating and considering the proposed bill for a law which violates the same constitution; and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Senate from passing into law the proposed bill which violates the 1999 constitution as amended.
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria reads in the provisions indicated already, viz 39 (1): Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. 39 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinion.