 The Nigerian government denies stopping Nigerians from using Twitter and Nigeria is going through its worst unemployment crisis, says the World Bank. This is plus politics, a dying Marianne of all. The Nigerian government has denied stopping people from using Twitter in the country despite announcing the suspension of the operations of the social media platform in Nigeria. The Attorney General of the Federation, Abu Bakar Malami, made the claim in a counter affidavit issued in response to an originating motion filed by a human rights lawyer in Iber Efion. He is suing the government on the legitimacy of enforcing a Twitter suspension in Nigeria. Efion is actually seeking nine reliefs including an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from further suspending, deactivating or banning the operation and the accessibility of Twitter or any social media service in Nigeria. Joining us to discuss this is Barista Chris Itamonola. We also have Barista Courage and Sirumovu and both of them are legal practitioners, obviously. And Euforma Abamono is a broadcast journalist and he does business on Twitter. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. Good evening. Of course, we all use social media and that's where the conversation is coming from. But I'll start with you Barista Itamonola. The AGF this morning said that Nigerians have not been stopped using Twitter. He said that many Nigerians are using Twitter through the VPN service and most of the people that are complaining that they are unable to use Twitter are still using Twitter. But this suit against the federal government, of course, with Malami as one of the people who have been called in the suit is it about us having access to Twitter or is it about the banning? Because of course people still have access to Twitter but they have to pay to get that access. But the government has said Twitter is suspended till further notice. So what is the statement by the AGF? What does it mean in essence and legally? First and foremost, good evening to you and also to our world listeners. Now, a law, an offence is an offence because the law says that it is an offence. And of course there are offences that are prescribed directly by the constitution, the criminal code. But there are also offences that become offences by virtue of pronouncement of government. I'm aware that sometime about 5th of June 2021, the federal government came on air and made a very categorical pronouncement that the usage of Twitter in Nigeria would be an offence. And one of the direct consequences of that was the fact that media stations, media units of the federal government or private or whatsoever were automatically barred from the usage of it. So the fact that Nigerians are converted, that's not the important thing. The important thing is you have denied the average citizen of the federal government of Nigeria a breach of his fundamental rights as inscribed in the section 36 of the Nigerian constitution. So this is my question because I'm a bit confused. The Nigerian constitution doesn't have any law that actually covers social media or access to Twitter or the likes, does it? Is there anything in the constitution that covers that aspect? Apart from the human rights issue which you are citing and Zinibaga is also citing in his suit, there is no express condition in the law that says the government cannot allow or government can stop us because of one reason or the other from using social media platforms, aside from human rights abuses. Is there anything in the constitution that could cover? Well, there is not directly in the constitution, so to say, but there are inlandals that can constitute if, for example, the government feels threatened by the pronouncement or statements of persons or group or persons that a statement can infer to be a hate speech by interpretation. Of course, what is a hate speech is another category entirely. The government can proceed against such persons. For example, you are talking about Igboho, you are talking about a Camel and so on. They use the social media, they use the strength of what they call the media, whether it's the print or any other form to advance at this end. And once the government, it's a subjective opinion. Once the government in its opinion views that this particular comment threatens it, now it advances the power. That is where we are. And for government to now come, I mean, Malamid, as the attorney general, holds a very highly exalted position. I'm a lawyer, he's a senior advocate of Nigeria. We do not speak from two sides of our mouths. It's unfortunate. Okay, let me bring courage here. Barca, courage and removal, can you hear me? Clearly, loud and clear. Perfect. Give me your two pens on this issue because sincerely, I'm a bit confused. Is the government saying that, well, they shut down Twitter and they're okay with us circumventing it? I mean, because we still have access to it and they don't have a problem. I'm trying to understand what the AGF means when he says that they haven't stopped Nigerians from using Twitter because we're still on Twitter. First of all, let me appreciate you for the privilege. And let me acknowledge a senior colleague also in the studio. You could see clearly, like the senior colleague has also said, that the attorney general is speaking from two sides of his mouth. Now, I want to address the question that you raised initially. Please allow me to do so when you stated that there is no clear provision in the constitution on matters concerning social media. When we talk about the rights to freedom of expression, that provision clearly states that this expression of your opinion can be from whatever media platform. Now, the simple meaning of that is that it includes social media or any other media platform. And that rights, according to the constitution, should not be unreasonably or unjustifiably interfered with. Now, the position of the generality of public and the legal minds in Nigeria are that at the point the president made that executive statement, so to speak, and banned the use of Twitter, he interfered with that constitutional rights of millions of about 39 million Nigerians that are active users of that Twitter space to freely express their opinions one way or another. But the attorney general, I'd like to quote him directly, disagrees with what you are saying, because he said that Nigerians are still tweeting even at the moment as the ban on Twitter is not aimed at intimidating Nigerians or an infringement on the rights of Nigerians to express their opinion. In other words, he's saying what we said or what we put out as a ban or a suspension of Twitter is not aimed at infringing on the rights of Nigerians and he's also saying that they have a right to express themselves. But the grasp of the government in his statement is that Twitter has allowed its platform to be used by elements that are one way or the other against the government. This is what he says the problem is. If the people have some way that some persons iPhone 1 and I know most people are not able to assess their Twitter but if some persons have circumvented that particular policy by going through other means to use Twitter, that does not directly mean that the use of Twitter was not banned. So whatever statement is making, it's absolutely incorrect. I'm saying this even to show some level of respect to him. If not, I would have said it's an outright lie to the people of Nigeria. And again, this matter is also before the courts. Sheriff had gone to court to challenge this particular position and we are hopeful that there will be an outcome even though of course if you go to court to seek an injunction, you don't seek an injunction for something that has already been done. I know that's maybe the challenge with that particular case but then let's not preempt because let's see what comes out of that particular case. Okay, let me come to Forma in the studio. Forma, you double as a journalist. You're the head of New School, Wazubia Info. You write the stories obviously and I'm guessing that Serge had told you directly that deactivate Twitter. We don't want to see here Twitter even when you're closing the news because every media house will say follow us on Twitter, Instagram. As a journalist, how does this affect you because even the print media, literally everybody moved to social media especially Twitter because it's short precise and you can put out your message in 140 characters. When the AGF comes up with this statement, how does it make you feel as a news person? Well, I'm not going to be politically correct like your last guest who said he wants to respect the AGF. I don't think this is a question of respect. Let's say it the way it is. He's a bold-faced liar. There are not two ways about it. As soon as that pronouncement was made on June the 4th, the next day, it was a Friday, like today, the next day by Saturday morning, the mobile, sorry, internet providers in the country, all of them blocked access to Twitter. Today is the 23rd of July till today that access is still blocked. Whoever is using Twitter, I wouldn't even want to say circumvent because that would mean you're breaking the law. There's actually no law stopping people from using Twitter. The government pronouncement is even, maybe I'm not a lawyer, but I know that like the lawyers have said, there's freedom of expression. You can express yourself in whatever means including social media. Anybody who is telling me not to express myself through Twitter is actually infringing on my rights. The people who are actually using Twitter as it is right now are using Twitter through other means because the right means to do that via the internet providers have been blocked. I saw that story this morning where I could understand because unfortunately this is the government that came into power through a lot of disinformation, misinformation, so it's not a surprise. They've told lots of lies. Really? Yeah, they have. They have? Yeah, they have told lots of lies or they've twisted... Could it be propaganda, you mean? Well, maybe you could add that. But see, the truth of the matter is that on one hand, the government has a good reason to want to do what they want to do. What is this good reason? Because Nigerians are still trying to understand what the good reason is. The good reason is that... I do not see... I don't know. Maybe I'm using the wrong term. Maybe it's not... Maybe not good reason. It really doesn't portray what I'm trying to see. My point is that social media has also been abused. Let's call it spade is spade. You know, there have been lots of... Everything is abused. There have been lots of lies told on social media, including those of us who are even journalists. Stories that have been twisted, propaganda machine. So, yes, I can understand the government's concern when it comes to dealing... But Nigeria already has laws that deal with these issues. I'm interested in the twisted stories and all of that. I know that WhatsApp and Facebook are the most terrible platforms in terms of propaganda. We see all sorts. Twitter even has some verifications. They do some work in terms of verifying news if it's true or false. But when the government tries to make it look like it's because Twitter is the playing ground for propaganda, I'm worried. But if government had been concerned about Twitter, why didn't it wait until the president's tweet was taken down for them to act? Because people are still asking, is Mr. President really sure? Is the federal government really sure that it's not about the tweets that was deactivated? The fact that they feel insulted, that the president of the country, the largest, highest-populated country was taken down? Or that it is just that Twitter has become a publisher of fake stories? So, here's the honest truth. The honest truth is that these issues did not start today. It goes all the way back to 2020. The NSAS protest. If we want to call it speed, it's speed. Now, as a result of how Twitter is, a lot of the protests started with social media, Twitter especially. And then the CEO, Dursi, actually actively participated in the sense that he used the platform to actually help not the organizer, some of the persons who were part of that protest to get funds. Now, as far as the government was concerned, that was a problem. It was a problem because the government itself failed to understand what exactly the NSAS protest was for. Do you remember the president in his last media interview, did talk about the fact that people wanted to overthrow him? It felt... I was really annoyed when I heard that. But then I remember that early this year, I was in the presence of a senior legal state government official who was discussing the whole NSAS and the aftermath. Marianne, I can't say right here publicly some of the things I heard. It felt like my mouth was open. I'm like, really? So, there's a disconnect. The people in government really did not understand what the whole protest was. Yes, a lot of people took advantage of it. Well, the protest did start as a protest against a rogue police organization, but it did met a more force into accountability, good governance. Good governance and all of that. But what is wrong in Nigerians asking for accountability? If there was any, would we have been asking? So the problem I'm trying to explain to you now is that from the government angle, from people in government, they did not see that protest as asking for accountability. For them, it was about the opposition on one angle. It was about separatists, in fact, they even roped iPop into it. No jokes. And so, if the president himself can openly tell you that NSAS protest was about trying to overthrow him, that's why in their statement banning Twitter, they said Twitter was threatening the corporate existence of Nigeria. So it goes all the way back to that issue. Did Jack Dorsey use Twitter to help with the funding of NSAS? Yes, but because they thought NSAS was about overthrowing the government, so when the whole issue about the president's tweets was taken down, there had already been discussions within them to do something and they saw that as an opportunity to do it. I'm curious. Can a Twitter CEO single-handedly raise funds for a protest to unseat a government? How possible is that? Say it again! I mean, according to what the former is saying here, he's saying that the government was claiming that the funding of the NSAS protest by the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was in a bid to overthrow the Bahá'í government. So I'm asking, can a Twitter or a tech CEO single-handedly through a protest of young people who are sick of a rogue police force single-handedly overthrow a government like that of President Bahá'í? The answer is no. And what is important is, of course, rather than to focus on that particular source, I thought that the government will focus on itself and cleanse itself and ask itself a number of questions. Why are we where we are? Why is the government being threatened? The government in 2014 used this same medium, both Twitter and other forms of social media avenues to advance itself into governance. And one of the futures of democracy is liberty to be able to express yourself, of course, within the context of its limits, so that the CEO are being accused of water. You will have various ways of transmitting what the security challenges. What the government should be looking at in this particular instance is not gargling the citizenry. What it should be doing, I mean, as of now, in terms of the economy, five over 500 Naira to the dollar in security in every part of the country, that should be the challenge of the government. The average Nigeria cannot eat, does not have food, no job whatsoever. Those are the promises, the promise, and the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with all due respect to him, should undertake self-fulfilling this. I'm not stopping. So, if once, you see, as a lawyer, I need to let you know this then, once there is a threat that your rights are going to be violated, that right in the eye of the law is assumed to have been threatened. That's why, for example, if there is a threat that the police is going to arrest you, under the fundamental rights rules, you have a right to go to court to seek protection. So, the fact that the government has already given a blanket ban that against the usage of Twitter, that automatically is offensive against the rights of the citizens. And to say that, of course, when you take a step, the average Nigerian is going to start looking for an alternative. So, the fact that you are looking for an alternative to advance your rights does not mean that the right itself has not been breached. And I think this is the main point. All right, Courage, back to you. Looking at the body language of this government and the prayers of Boris Dayneberg, which is, I'd like to quote it directly, he's seeking nine reliefs. He's seeking an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents, which is the federal governments, the AGF, et cetera, et cetera, from suspending, from deactivating or banning the operation and accessibility of Twitter and other social media platforms. Let's not forget that in the news last week or two weeks ago, the government was also hinting at pushing for the ban of WhatsApp and monitoring it. Yes, they wanted to monitor WhatsApp. And WhatsApp is a bit more personal to the user more than Twitter. So, all of these prayers, he's saying that all of these are a violation of human rights. Remember that the ECOS court had ruled on this matter. The federal government has not shifted grounds. What is the, I mean, really, is there any assurance that the governments might shift grounds on this issue because it's been going on for weeks and weeks, and from weeks it will turn to months, and who knows, it might just be the whole year and we might not have access to Twitter through our social media, and beg your pardon, our providers, MTN and GLO and all of them. So what do we do? Like we have come to understand, the democracy that we enjoyed today was not freely given. The fact that SARS was banned was not freely given. It took an active citizenry to advocate against practices that are undemocratic like what we have now. Let me quickly say that the people in Nigeria are very reasonable people, I would clearly say so, and when there was lockdown, lockdown was a limitation and restriction of our rights to freedom of movement. The question that it's where is that whether or not it was reasonably justifiable, was it good, was it for the interest of the public, and that is yes, a pandemic was being prevented. Now, the question of limitation of our rights to freedom of expression by the ban of Twitter, thereby interfering with our rights to freedom to speak is it reasonably justifiable? And the answer is no. However, the case in court, I have my concerns with that particular case, maybe I've not basically looked at the prayers, but I know that in law, you cannot go seeking for injunction for what has already been done. So that's a challenge with that particular case. But many of your colleagues have argued that there's no legality to the suspension in the first instance. Can you really say it's in force? Yes, telecommunication providers have adhered to it, but does it still mean that you cannot get an injunction for it if they are legally speaking? Looking at it as something that is illegal in the first instance. I think basically you can go to court to ask the court to interbreed and of course get that particular either order ban or executive order. If the court can make a pronouncement that is invalid, it's against the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and all of that. Then at that point in time we go back to state to school and there and that means of course making a consequential order that people can now be allowed to freely assess Twitter as one of the forms of freedom of expression. Of course that can be done. You raise the question on the body language of this administration. Whether they may lift the ban through continuous advocacy and pressure on the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the government of the day I think that would definitely be achieved. I don't know do you see Nigerians putting pressure anymore because like we have been saying lots of people have looked for other means of accessing Twitter and it's become normal right now. They've forgotten about it. Do we see that pressure being mounted anytime soon? The body language of the president we know how the president never really shifts ground on anything. Do we see that happening or will we see Twitter unbanned for the wonderful better word just close to the elections or politicians? Unfortunately I don't think so and I said it on the day the ban was made even if the Supreme Court rules against the president I do not Are you saying that our president is disobedient to court orders? Well he told the gathering of lawyers early in his administration that he can as well suspend the human rights of any individual if it goes against security and the state of the nation superseding the rule alone. Exactly and unfortunately lawyers were chairing him back then today we're seeing the repercussions someone will ask why are we going on and on and on about Twitter well according to netblocks that tracks internet governance Nigeria loses on a daily basis on a daily basis 6 million dollars to this ban that's over 2 billion Naira let's even not go far let me calm down to the basics who for me is sitting here as soon as that ban was done a week later I lost the deal on Twitter worth over a million Naira that's me who doesn't get that much business done on Twitter imagine the people whose livelihoods depend on social media so yes the reason we're talking about this is because of the economic repercussions that it has unfortunately because the government is hell bent on gagging not just social media but media in a whole you can see the number of bills being introduced in the House of Assembly that's the story for another day like I said even if the Supreme Court rules against this order I hope I'm wrong but I honestly do not believe that president you don't believe that with the elections coming because 2022 is of course going to be the campaign long year you do not see the government shifting grounds on that basis because no this is also something like Mr. Tamil Nadu said the government of the day came to power on the wings of social media we saw how they laundered the image of Mr. President for him to get into power on the same platform so do you not see that happening for the APC? So I'm an historical man an historical man is usually called Tolapia what does that mean? That's cutlass it's an abomination so to speak to hold the cutlass behind an historical man why because an historical man knows how to use the cutlass very well why am I saying this you just noted that this present government came to power through a lot of social media usage they know how effective it can be part of all of this ban of whatever it is plans to gag the media is all 2023 whatever is going to because unfortunately twitter over time has become like the unseen opposition to the government a lot of persons have voiced their opposition a lot of things have changed because of twitter they know how powerful it too social media is yes social media has these issues time will allow us to get into all of that I'm not going to deny that fact yes twitter itself has double standards I'm not going to deny all of that but using that as an excuse to stop every other person I do not see them changing it because one way or the other it will have adverse effects on their plans to of course retain power in 2023 well we'll keep our fingers crossed on this particular one and see how it continues to develop special thanks to Christy Talmanola and Christy thank you very much thank you so much thank you great we'll take a short break thank you for staying with us and when we return we discuss the unemployment in Nigeria and what the war bank has to say about it and how it will affect us as a country stay with us