Right to Freedom of Expression

By Abubakar Suleiman

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” – Idi Amin

The advent and tremendous upsurge of social media platforms have really enabled and deepened freedom of expression as guaranteed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It has interestingly also destroyed barriers erected by politicians to insulate them from public criticism or scrutiny. However, this freedom has come with some blowbacks. The platforms aren’t the sources of the blowbacks, but the abuse of their usage is.

An issue on the front burner is the arrest and alleged torture or physical assault of one Aminu Adamu, a student of Federal University, Dutse, who was accused of posting a tweet suggesting the First Lady, Aisha Buhari, to be corrupt for squandering the poor man’s money and her body size is a sign of this alleged thievery. The arrest was allegedly carried out on the instruction or directive of the First Lady.

Surprisingly, as at the time of writing this piece, Mrs Buhari or her spokesperson is yet to give a public statement distancing her from this allegation which is a classic case of impunity or abuse of privileges or government institutions. Sketchy reports have it that it is the handiwork of an overzealous security detail attached to her. 

Warts and all, a Nigerian citizen has gone missing, and the Department of State Services (DSS), the Police and other security agencies have a duty to reunite him with his family or take him to a court of competent jurisdiction for whatever offence he must have committed. And, of course, whoever enabled this forced disappearance of Aminu Adamu should also be charged within the ambit of the law.

That said, it is worth noting that politicians or people in power are not alone in the abuse of privileges. What Aminu allegedly did was also a clear case of abusing the freedom of expression and the privilege conferred on him by the Nigerian constitution and social media, respectively. Some people are so engulfed by tendentiousness in partisanships sometimes that they miss the opportunity to network or create value for their business products or brands using social media platforms. 

One of the disadvantages of the freedom that comes with social media is the ability to break barriers unconditionally. It is devoid of a vetting process. Hence it sometimes makes ill-mannered people feel empowered to impugn the integrity or character of people they ordinarily would not dare or attempt doing that too. Plus, others will share this character assassination with glee and without verification.

Tellingly, that politicians or public officers should be subjected to scrutiny or held accountable as humanly possible does not mean they can be maligned, slandered or outrightly and falsely accused with no scintilla of evidence. Politicians or people in power have blood running in their bodies. They have emotions. And bad as they might seem, they also have some integrities to protect.

Bridges have been burnt in exchange for likes or savages on media platforms. Oftentimes effused hatred or unintelligent zingers have replaced verification and validation. In the comfort of basements, unscrupulous people have willingly or unknowingly plunged people into fierce physical or fight online, or even a country into chaos with uncouth written words borne out of unstable emotions. 

Some people just find it difficult to make a point without using insulting or derogatory words, while others will just classically defame or cast aspersions uncontrollably and even unintelligently. 

Interestingly, these people who enjoy and propagate this kind of bashing find it difficult to stomach the slightest of criticisms whenever they are subjected to one. I especially blame no politician or a person in power who approaches a court for this purpose. That they are politicians doesn’t mean their characters or integrities don’t matter.

Therefore, we really need to tread carefully with our engagements on social media platforms. If we derive pleasure in unfettered access to such platforms, then our usage of them should come with a high sense of responsibility.

Let me conclude with a few lines from Kalev Leetaru’s article published on Forbes with the title, “A Reminder That ‘Fake News’ Is An Information Literacy Problem – Not A Technology Problem,” he wrote, “schools no longer teach source triangulation, conflict arbitration, separating fact from opinion, citation chaining, conducting research or even the basic concept of verification and validation. In short, we’ve stopped teaching society how to think about information, leaving our citizenry adrift in the digital wilderness, increasingly saturated with falsehoods without so much as a compass or map to help them find their way to safety. The solution is to teach the world’s citizenry the basics of information literacy.”

Abubakar Suleiman writes from Kaduna and can be reached via abusuleiman06@yahoo.com.

By Rabiu Muhammad Gama

For a start, protest is something that you do to show publicly that you think something is wrong and unfair. Protest is an expression of disapproval; it’s done in different forms and on any day; it can be verbal or physical or via social media. In a democratic society like Nigeria, protest is an effective and legitimate tool, usually the only tool, that citizens can use to express their displeasure concerning some government measures or policies publicly. For example, when the government fails to discharge its duties, the citizens can hit the streets to register their grievances against the government. The nagging question, which this article sets out to answer, is: must people get a permit from a state governor or the Police Commissioner before convening a protest?

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), is the fundamental law of the land. It is the law on top of which there is no other law. It is over and above any law, body or authority. It has been aptly submitted that the Constitution of any country, and don’t forget Nigeria is still a country, is the embodiment of what the people desire to be their guiding light in governance – their supreme law – the “grundnorm” of all their laws.

By virtue of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, any law, and that ‘any’ does mean ANY, that is inconsistent, or in conflict with a provision of the Constitution, that law is invalid and utterly useless due to its inconsistency with the Constitution. Please, permit me to draw an analogy; whenever there is a boxing match in a ring (read: court of law) between the Constitution and any other law, the referees (judges) always rule, and will undoubtedly continue to rule, in favour of the Constitution. No law can knock out the Constitution, no matter how strong and powerful its muscles are. The Constitution always prevails.

The Constitution provides for Fundamental Human Rights, precisely from Section 33 to Section 44, and these sections are in Chapter Four of the Constitution. These Fundamental Human Rights are simply those Rights that every human is entitled to simply because he is human. Therefore, these Rights cannot be taken away or restricted except in full compliance with Section 45 of the Constitution and some other relevant provisions therein.

Section 39 and Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution provide for the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Right to Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly, respectively: merging these two Sections gives us the Right to Protest. In the light of the foregoing, it is safe to submit that Right to Protest is a Fundamental Human Right that is clearly guaranteed and enshrined by the 1999 Constitution. Hence it cannot be restricted by anybody, including the DSS or the Police, or rather particularly the DSS or the Police. It is only the Constitution that can restrict that Right.

Before 2005, there was one undemocratic federal law (Act) that was dripping with dictatorship and some leftovers of colonialism mentality, the Public Order Act. The Law (Act) was initially promulgated as the Public Order Decree 5 Of 1979, and it later became an Act of the National Assembly under Section 274 of the 1979 Constitution. Sections 1 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6), 2, 3 and 4 of the Act required intending protesters to get a permit from the Governor (he can delegate the powers to the Commissioner of Police) of the state where the protest is to be held before they can protest. When the Governor, or the Commissioner of Police as the case may be, thinks that the protest is likely to disrupt public order, he can refuse to issue the permit.

However,  in the celebrated case of IGP v. ANPP (2008) 12 NWLR 65 when Malam General Muhammadu Buhari (as he then was) and his then political party, the ANPP, lost the presidential election in 2003 to Olusegun Obasanjo, requested the Inspector General of Police (IGP) by a letter dated 21^st May 2004, to issue police permits to their members to hold unity rally throughout the country to protest the alleged rigging of the 2003 election. The request was refused.

General Buhari and the rest of them organised the rally without the permits. As a result, there was a violent disruption of the rally organised in Kano on 22nd September 2003, on the ground that no police permit was obtained as required by the Public Order Act. The Federal High Court invalidated the provisions of the Act that required a Police permit before a protest is staged on the ground of their being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Section 39 and 40, and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights ( Reification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1990.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal also affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court. Right from the Federal High Court, the learned trial judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana in the case of New Patriotic Party v. Inspector General of Police (1992 – 93) GBR 585 – (2000) 2 HRLRA 1 where it was aptly submitted that:

“Police permit has outlived its usefulness, statutes requiring such permits for peaceful demonstrations, processions and rallies are things of the past. Police permits is the brainchild  of [the] colonial era and ought not to remain in our statute books.”

That was how the Court sent those unconstitutional provisions of the Public Order Act to their eternal grave. By the way, it may interest you to know that by virtue of Section 83 (4) of the Police Establishment Act, 2020, where a person or an organisation CHOOSES to notify the police of his or its intention to hold a public meeting, rally or a procession on a public highway, the police officer responsible for the area where the rally will take place shall mobilise personnel to provide security for the rally! The police or the DSS have no powers whatsoever to stop or restrict the Fundamental Right of Nigerians to freedom of expression and assembly once those rights are exercised within the ambit of the law.

As the law stands today, no police permit is required before staging a protest in Nigeria. The right to protest is a Fundamental Human Right given by the Constitution, which cannot be taken away or restricted except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Rabiu Muhammad Gama is a Law student from Bayero University, Kano (BUK). He can be reached on 09061912994 or via rabiuminuwa327@gmail.com.