CONFRONTING SENATOR NA'ALLAH AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA BILL

On the 27^th of January, I was privileged to be invited to meet Deputy Senator Leader Bala Na’Allah to talk/debate the proposed Social Media Bill. It was an interesting forum set up by the Abuja Global Shapers as part of their Abuja Dialogue Series. A couple of things I have to point out here, first I wasn’t at the beginning of the event and had to step out towards the end. The other is that I am not a member of the Abuja Global Shapers nor am I a sympathizer for Senator Na’Allah. Everything you read here henceforth is based off what I was present for.

The Social Media Bill proposed by the senator has caused an uproar, some will say justifiably so, while some will say for the wrong reasons. The first thing you need to know is that the Social Media Bill is not called that, it is actually called the bill to "Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and Other Matters Connected Therewith". It is quite a mouthful, so we will stick to just calling it what it has since been referred to as: the Social Media Bill.

The second and perhaps most important thing to note is that the bill does NOT set out to ban the use of social media or clamp down on people who simply use it. The senator himself is a self-confessed social media user with accounts on all major platforms (Facebook, Twitter & Instagram). He sees social media as something fundamental to our society, so to ban its use is out of the question. What he takes issues with is when it is being used to say things that are untrue or damaging to the character of individuals and while the bill is aimed to cover anyone who has been slandered on social media, it is hard not to see that it is main purpose or rather what inspired the bill is the slandering of public officials. This is something that is hard to overlook. Part of the bill “begins by making it illegal to start any type of petition without swearing an affidavit that the content is true in a court of law”*. It seems like a check and balance type law, but there’s more to it.

I have to take the time out to point out the character of the senator himself before you imagine him as a villain in a Bond movie who wants to control the internet. Senator Na’Allah has a bubbly and charismatic personality as evident to the laughter he caused sharing his story and defending his bill. He comes off as a very peaceful person, whose only seeming flaw is his agitation when confronted by equally agitated people, evident by one participant who was just not too happy about the bill. That aside, the Senator raised some points that thoroughly defended his stance on the bill. One cannot simply accuse another for things he/she hasn’t done and simply think it’s okay to do so. We can all agree with this. The Senator- like any public figure -has been a victim of such to the point where even his family members were called unflattering names. It’s hard not to understand his frustration and see where he’s coming from. What is hard to understand is where this leads us when confronting such attacks.

While I sympathize with the senator on the false accusations made against him and/or his family members, I see it as the tragic trade-off of being a public figure, be you a politician or a celebrity. Once you’re out there in the public, you put yourself up (and unfortunately those close to you) for all sorts of ridicule (I believe one day these lines will be used against me if I ever become a public figure). It doesn’t make what people say about you (or how they say it) right, but you can’t clamp down on everyone’s right to say it.

The bill sets out to punish those who intentionally defame the character of individuals with malicious intent. There is already a problem with this intent and that is the fact that there already is a law in Nigeria that covers slander and libel (I learnt more law that day than four seasons of Suits). So why the Social Media Bill then? The senator himself was a lawyer in his past life, although he admits not a very good one. And here’s where the crux of the bill comes to play: when one decides to fight libel, there’s a process that more than usual takes quite a while, with the social media bill however, let’s just say it’s sped up a bit. A sped up law for a sped up medium, seems almost fitting until you remember this is Nigeria and despite the good intentions of this bill, is still in favour of the few and not the masses, even if it covers the latter as well. The average Nigerian will not go through such trouble to fight the defamation of his character unless he had the means (read: power, money and access) to, but we know who does.

The point that a law to fight libel already exist was repeatedly brought up through the dialogue and so was the constitution which upholds it and the senator is a man who seemingly understands the constitution (he’s not where he is by accident). As he eloquently put it- and I think I’m going to be using this quote for the rest of my life – “The right to swing your arm is stopped by the constitution when you hit someone.” I’m not going to lie, that line hit me with all its glorious awesomeness!

The problem is what to do after you’ve hit someone. The Social Media Bill almost seems to say we can cut off your arm… but just not explicitly. And here’s why: Already there is a problem with how we term “defamation” particularly when it comes to the use of social media. There’s a difference between out rightly telling a lie about someone to make them look bad and telling something that although not necessarily true, is told to point out something else in a larger context, like say satire. Already we know that most Nigerians- politicians and the masses alike -don’t appreciate satire. Either it goes over their heads (am not trying to sound extremely educated or elitist here) or they hate when you call them a fool without spelling it out. And we know that social media has been the home/refuge for those who appreciate and practice satire. What stops people in power or just plain individuals from confusing the two and using the Social Media Bill to prosecute an individual? This worries me… greatly! And this worries a lot of commentators on social media as well, rightfully so. In the hands of the people in power the bill can be used to clamp down on social commentators who use satire to bring out their point, since it at time does involve a bit of fibbing to tell a larger story.

There’s also the punishment to be carried out under the proposed bill that has to be addressed: “two years in prison, or a fine of $10,000, or both, for anyone posting an "abusive statement" via text message, Twitter, WhatsApp, or any other form of social media. It also creates offences with varying penalties for false publications by print, radio and TV outlets.”*

This is where Senator Na’Allah begins to look like that Bond villain (by the way that statement can be seen as a form of satire and can unfortunately be seen by some as defamation of character). For starters, it isn’t that the penalty seems harsh, IT IS. I doubt the majority of Twitter and Whatsapp users are fit to survive two years imprisonment or ready to pay what amounts to N2 million upwards depending on the current state of the market. We don’t all have rich uncles to protect us! Second is how clearly the medium of social media is singled out.

For a populace that has for years before the return of democracy in 1999, fought for an avenue to express themselves with no fear or repercussion whatsoever from the government of the day, this is an attack even with its good intentions. As the bill further makes it clear, people who "intentionally propagate false information that could threaten the security of the country or that is capable of inciting the general public against the government through electronic message" could be jailed for up to seven years and fined up to five million Naira ($25,000; £16,000).* As some have noted, the bill does not define "abusive statement or messages”. And as I hope I have clearly pointed out, some people can’t tell the difference between forms of satire and actual defamation, particularly with the constant use of the former on social media.

The bill is yet to pass as it has been referred to a committee and is expected to have a public hearing sometime in the coming months. I understand the need for the likes of Senator Na’Allah and his ilk to protect themselves as any citizen would want to from untrue and destructive statements made about them, but I personally don’t see this bill coming to pass. Nor do I think plenty of activists who already see it as an attempt to target critics of lawmakers and politicians will stand by it if it does.

Let’s be clear, the internet can and is a harsh place at times. I live there from time to time and I have seen people’s whole generation being slaughtered electronically by words and/or pictures. But it is also because of the same internet that I can post this and express myself (hopefully in a fair manner without defaming others) without having to get a job at a newspaper where my words might be heavily edited so as not to offend anyone and thereby curtailing the message therein.

I have to give thanks to the Abuja Global Shapers for holding such a forum and I encourage more people from our generation to step away from the monitors and screens of their computers and phones momentarily to dialogue in matters concerning their future, rather than wait to criticize whatever outcome is made without them on Twitter.

But perhaps more importantly I think we should all thank the Deputy Senate Leader for taking the time out to explain his stance and defend his proposed bill as he has the right to. Not a lot of our leaders are willing to take the time out to do so, rather expecting us to take whatever law they throw at us. The proposed bill does have some very good points; let’s not doubt that for a second and simply think it is all bad and the senator has shown he is willing to listen and converse… something social media greatly allows us to do, which we hope will continue to happen!

*references from Teo Kermeliotis, Al-Jazeera.