The bill on ‘Frivolous Petitions and Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2015’ presently before the Senate has generated uproar in the polity leading most users of the social media kick resolutely against it calling for outright neglect of the bill. The bill sponsored by the Deputy Senate leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah representing Kebbi South Senatorial District prescribes up to two years imprisonment or $10,000 (N2m) fine or both for anyone disseminating malicious information to deceive the public online.
Among notable organizations that frown over the bill was the Nigerian Guild of editors. The Guild through its President, Garba Deen Mohammed has demanded unconditionally that the Senate suspends all proceedings with respect to the bill describing it as anti-people as it alleges that the object of the bill was to infringe on the freedom of expression provided for Nigerians in the constitution.
Several other persons have individually and aggregately registered displeasures over the proposal. Incidentally, most persons interviewed vehemently opposed, accusing the law makers of looking for avenues to silence the public after benefitting from the same social platforms which was dominantly used during campaigns by the politicians.
Admittedly, social media platforms were used indiscriminately during campaign by politicians who took advantage of the new invention in reaching the electorates at just a press of button or touch on the screen at no extra cost. Unfortunately, after the elections, the use of the same social media overnight metamorphosed to a conceived taboo. Nonetheless, who stands to gain or lose if eventually the bill scales through or could it be accurately seen to be consistent with public interest which should be paramount? Could it be the people in government that wouldn’t want their omissions or commissions to be exposed as conceived, the governed or the society at large?
Pertinently, good laws grossly frown at antiquity, instead, it embraces growth. It is essentially dynamic in nature; having the capacity to accept change which is ever constant. This principally accounts to the raison d’être for the legislative arm of government statutorily retained despite the fact that laws are already in existence. In our socio-political milieu, the constitution creates the National and Houses of Assembly with a duty to enact laws and modify existing laws where such laws are obsolete or a lacuna exists. Hence, the proposition for the bill as consolidation vis-à-vis the existing tort of libel and slander demands intensive thoughtfulness rather than illogical and political interpretations.
No doubt, the delineation between the bill and fundamental human rights in the grundnorm which inter alia provides for the citizen’s right to freedom of expression cannot in anyway be overemphasized as it gives every citizen a right to express opinions and thoughts without fear or favour. However, it is important to note that while the right gives a right to freely speak out, the right is, on the other hand not absolute. The tort of libel and slander clearly restricts it by making it a tortuous liability to deliberately publish fictional stories against the person of another knowing it to be false.
By implication, the mischief which the bill intends to curb is reasonably recognized in law and therefore shouldn’t be misconstrued as a plot to swallow the opposition. I think the bill is aimed at extending the existing tort to include online activities since the existing law might not be applicable to such mischief which is, at the moment unknown to law.
It would, at this juncture be recalled that during the campaign, the rate of abuses on the social media sites was unprecedented even by some persons in leadership position. People resorted to indiscriminate misleading information knowing them to be false in its entirety. By and large, the proposed law to checkmate the information, utterances and allegations online should be seen as justifiable consolidation of the existing law on libel and slander, and therefore not anti-masses bill. If the same actions that would be tantamount to libel and slander amount to nothing when it is done online, it simply implies a lacuna.
Suffice to say that the proposer of the said bill is in order. The bill should be given due consideration rather than being politicized for a healthier society. Undeniably, it will pay no one to live in a society where false and misleading information are indiscriminately spread about. This is because, today, it is someone else, tomorrow; you could find yourself in the same shoes of the victims. Misleading information which the tort of libel and slander intends to control cannot reasonably be allowed to blossom online. Essentially, the victims could escape liability on account of online publication not statutorily included in the tort of libel and slander. The object is succinct; online writers should as a responsibility publish only verifiable information same way as offline publishers.