The Twitter-Buhari brawl and the grasses that suffer

Last week has been a turbulent one even for Nigeria. The abduction of yet another 136 children – some as young as seven – and three of their teachers from a school in Niger State; the massacre of over 200 Nigerians in Kebbi, Zamfara, Borno, Ebonyi and a host of other states in the week; […]

Last week has been a turbulent one even for Nigeria. The abduction of yet another 136 children – some as young as seven – and three of their teachers from a school in Niger State; the massacre of over 200 Nigerians in Kebbi, Zamfara, Borno, Ebonyi and a host of other states in the week; the worsening of secessionists’ attacks on security and civil authorities and targeting of northerners resident in the South East; all of these were relegated to the background by an avoidable row between an arrogant tech giant and an out-of-touch administration.

A simple issue, which could have been easily ironed out by engaging directly, was mismanaged by Twitter and the Buhari administration, culminating in a public battle for supremacy. The result is a dent on our country’s international image, and impact on millions of Nigerians caught in the crossfires. That is what happens when elephants fight; it is the grasses that suffer. In this case, both elephants are in the wrong.

• Buhari must establish reconciliation commission to fix Nigeria — Prof Moghalu
• Ex-presidential candidate hosts CNG, preaches unity

Twitter was wrong to have removed President Buhari’s tweet on the vague grounds of “violation of the Twitter rules”. They should have explained which “rules” were violated and how. The company may have been swayed by the accusation that Buhari’s tweets contained a threat of genocide. It should have investigated it itself, and might have arrived at a different conclusion.

The controversial tweet was culled from a speech President Buhari made in response to a briefing by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Professor Mahmood Yakubu had briefed the president on a dozen separate attacks just this year on its offices across the South-East and South-South in which the offices were razed, equipment looted and vehicles torched. He concluded that if these calculated attacks go on unabated, they may undermine the commission’s capacity to organise the 2023 elections.

In response to this chilling warning, President Buhari assured the INEC chair that he would provide every protection required to successfully conduct the next general elections so that no one would accuse him of orchestrating an unconstitutional third term. He then lamented that the situation in the South-East is a premeditated attempt by secessionists to destroy Nigeria, reiterated his resolve to defend Nigeria’s integrity and warned that those on this evil mission would soon “receive the shock of their lives”. The president then said this:

“For those of us who were unfortunately in the field for the 30 months of the civil war to see the carnage of how we killed ourselves – at least a million people, I think those that are misbehaving were either too young – they didn’t know what happened (sic). But for those of us who went through all these things, we can’t understand; so we will treat them in the language they understand… We are going to be very hard sooner than later.”

I simply cannot see a threat of genocide in the above statement. President Buhari was clearly speaking about members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) who have for the past seven months or so been assassinating security forces, destroying INEC offices and police stations, courts and prisons in what promises to be Nigeria’s next biggest security threat. My reading of “so we will treat them in the language they understand” is that the federal government would deploy force against those committing these atrocities. If IPOB no more represents Igbos than Boko Haram represents Kanuris, how can this be a threat of genocide? How a commitment by a Commander-in-Chief to keep the peace can be a contravention of Twitter’s community guidelines, I simply can’t fathom.

Of course, Buhari’s social media handlers removed key words, and may have changed his meaning. But I still can’t see a threat of genocide in the tweet. I wouldn’t have used Buhari’s example and his choice of words, but to twist his words in this manner is monumental disingenuity. Even if Twitter felt this is a violation, they should have engaged directly with the presidency to ask them to remove the post.

Meanwhile, the same Twitter has no problem with Nnamdi Kanu’s unscrupulous – even criminal – activities on its platform. Kanu’s litany of tweets and broadcasts justifying and celebrating IPOB’s horrific attacks and gloating the death of Nigerians in other parts of the country are not a violation of the company’s terms. His spreading of hate and promotion of violence against an entire people that he vilifies as “Fulani terrorists” and branding of the Buhari administration as “terrorists and jihadists ruling Nigeria” all seems to be within the Twitter ‘rules’.

Twitter did not delete Kanu’s repulsive tweets until after they were banned by the Buhari administration. Only then did they remove his post declaring “I wish to assure @GarShehu (Garba Shehu), the Jihadi midget @elrufai (Nasir El-Rufai) & that Fulani lapdog Femi Adesina that any army they send to #Biafraland will die there. None will return alive.” It is hard to see the deletion of this single post as anything other than a belated attempt to reclaim ‘neutrality’. But a fugitive overseeing terrorist acts should not be tolerated at all.

Now for Buhari’s own wrong. The administration cited “the persistent use of the platform for activities that are capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence” to justify its “indefinite suspension” of Twitter, and required all social media companies to register locally. But one doesn’t need to be a genius to see the link between Buhari’s ban and Twitter’s ban. Is the Buhari administration reducing Nigeria’s “corporate existence” to the “sanctity” of his social media handles.  Hopefully not.

Perhaps the government is referring to the activities of Nnamdi Kanu and his ilk as well as its grievances over the use of the platform during the #EndSARS protests. Even if that is the case, the presidency’s decision to ban millions of Nigerians from Twitter for the fault of a few is not only wrong, but an afront on the constitutional right to free expression. The appropriate thing to do would have been to engage with the platform with a view to getting it take remedial steps. Only if they refused should government consider such a drastic step.

The consequences of Buhari’s mistake have already started to appear. The expression of “disappointment” over his action by the United States, the European Union, United Kingdom and Canada among others, will dent further our country’s human rights record. I know the average Nigerian won’t care or may even be disdainful of such Western views, but Buhari knows too well that this has real life implications. It will impact such crucial issues as the sale of military hardware to Nigeria, foreign investment and even aid at a time we need them most. This is in addition to the millions of businesses and individuals that will be directly and indirectly impacted economically by this ban.

We must accept that social media has the potential to be a security threat to any country. Its facilitation of dangerous conspiracy theories, fake news, misinformation and disinformation is frightening nations across the globe. Efforts to counter these trends must be reconciled with the right to free expression; free expression is not the same as anarchy. Nigeria’s social media must be sanitised – but such sanitation cannot be to settle scores.