 Obey Ekoa's judgments and end prosecutions for cyber-stalking, Serap tells Buhari. And in the aftermath of the 2023 elections tonight, we discussed divisive politics and reconciliation among warring parties. This is Plus Politics. My name is Nyam Ghul Aghaji. This socio-economic rights and accountability project, Serap, has urged President Mohammad Buhari to use his good offices and leadership position to immediately enforce the judgment by the Ekoa's court of justice, prohibiting prosecutions of anyone on the grounds of insulting or stalking public officials online. Serap also urged him to enforce and implement the Ekoa's court judgment compelling the government to respect, protect and promote freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom. In a letter dated 1st of April, 2023, and signed by Serap Deputy Director Kola Wole Oluwadare, the organization expressed serious concerns about the shrinking civic space in the country, as some state governors and government institutions are reportedly using Section 24 of the Cyber Crime Act and other repressive laws to crack down on anyone seeking to assert their human rights and media freedom. We're being joined live to discuss this by Kola Wole Oluwadare himself, Deputy Director Serap. Good evening and welcome to the program. Kola Wole. Let us begin with what this Almighty Section 24 is. Give us an insight as to what it portends, what it says, what its, the implications of this Section 24 are to the human rights and freedom of speech and everything that we're talking about today. Thank you. The act of the world, it's an act but it's called probably a law, it's an act of the National Civil Majority, is the Cyber Crimes Act and it has various sections. But within the context of this discussion and the ambit of it, it's used by Nigerian authorities. Section 24 stands out as a new section that has been used by the government to prosecute various classes of Nigerians, as particularly Germanists, or people who are perceived as being critical of government or public officer, of those who have access to a community of power. And Section 24 of the Cyber Crimes Act is basically talks about cyber-stalking and it creates a very big offences, even with the wordings of the section, which led Serap to go to court in 2019, that is the Air Coarse Court, challenging the provisions of Section 24, these are really the provisions of the African Charter, which naturally grants every Nigerian, Nigerian being a member of Air Coarse, freedom of expression. And in this instance, freedom of expression has also been guaranteed in our constitution, allows, it's a two-pronged right, it allows us to have conversations like this, but teach to express yourself and to receive information. And we know how this is important to democracy and to what we are as human beings, assassins, and Nigerians. And so Section 24 has been used to charge people to court for various offenses, but what am I saying, even WhatsApp messages, posts on social media, and the likes. And that is why we come to court. And the Air Coarse Court ruled that Section 24 of the Cyber Crimes Act is incompatible with the rights granted by African women or the African Charter, which has been ratified by Nigeria as a member of Air Coarse. And also, in 2020, we've come to court to challenge your lawful ban for Twitter, and the same effort was called the Spokeclaiming without means and words, that Nigerian government should take steps to ensure that the federal legislation on Nigeria is a guarantee, and not particularly at all. The first government clearly gave an order to the Nigerian government to repeal Section 24 of the Cyber Crimes Act. So naturally, what the government of Nigeria should do through the Ataligeon of the Federation is to place legislation before the National Assembly to amend Section 24 of the Cyber Crimes Act by repealing Section 24 of that act. And we've seen the various ways that they misused, if you ask me. And that is why we want to take these applications to ensure that that unlawful use of the law that we declared unlawful by the courts is stopped. Okay, when you talk about repealing Section 24, is it in its entirety, or are there just aspects of that section that are not agreeable to syrup and whatever we can describe as human rights? No, it is the entirety of Section 24. And that is why when you see the ways Section 24 of the Cyber Crimes Act is warranted enough, it is subject to review. It creates offences that says that if the person who receives the message, if he or she considers it obscene. And so, yeah, I'm more likely to do. Send you a message with the conversation between both of us. And you consider something to be obscene. And it's just a conversation between two of us. That would actually give you a right to make a complaint to the law enforcement agencies to judge me for some aspect of Section 24. And we all know that law as a tool of social engineering progresses. It catches up. It sets the pace as it were for society. And the norms that govern human beings, it sets the trend for us to follow. And in this instance, where the advent of social media and the various tools of communication as technology has brought our way, Section 24 is not only a danger to follow expression. It is a danger to democracy in the way it has been used and the way it is housed. And most importantly, a very good aspect of Section 31, for instance, or that's Subsection 1, is that it prescribes the penalty of several million error and not more than three years imprisonment for people who are found culpable. You would agree that that is too heavy a sentence for such a law that can be used as a way, particularly in the hands of law enforcement agencies in India, who we've seen time and again who are detention for abusing their powers. Okay, well, when we're talking about the fact that someone can just interpret it the way they like it, because like one of my lecturers used to say, meanings are in people, not in words, so you say something and somebody decides to interpret it in another way. But the question is, whose standards or which standards or what standards are we going to use to define what is supposed to be something that can put you in trouble, for instance, or something that you will say is not supposed to be said, it's cyberbullying, cybercrime, cyber, whatever you want to call it. What standards are we going to use to define this thing so that we know? Because there is a very thin line between this freedom of speech and what we cannot call freedom of speech, where somebody just says whatever they like because of the anonymity which social media, for instance, provides. The proximity or the remoteness that the social media provides, because what you will say to my face, what you might not say to my face, you will say it, because I'm not there and all that. So how do we define, at least, because there needs to still be some kind of sanity, no matter what? How do we define standards with which we can use to judge whether something is worthy enough for someone to prosecute you for? Thank you. And that's a very interesting perspective, which is some of the arguments that we have made before the court in a very long time, because initiatives to govern it in respect of Section 24 and the freedom of expression. And I think we need to preface this conversation by understanding, firstly, the nature of the act itself and what Section 24 protects, which is where we argue that the section itself and the role of the section and the use, which are two different things, they are very sympathetic. The fourth barrier that provides, for instance, that even message, even if anyone sends a message and preface it, sends a message to another by using the computer, a system or a network that is grossly offensive, pornographic in descent or obscene or menacing in character and it causes to descent, it becomes a threat. And then if you ask that you are asked, whose view will be considered by the court by the law enforcement agencies in charging someone to call on this section whether a message is obscene, is menacing, or gross. And within the context of this conversation human rights are not absolute. And the law, for instance, the constitution in providing for freedom of expression in Section 29 has also provided limits. And these limits have also provided legal remedies whether there is a breach, which of course leads to anybody being called an informative foundation as in law or like that, depending on the nature of certain statements other than the tone. But that does not mean that certain actions should be criminalized. At best, there are similar remedies for some actions and we've seen people make this option to go to court over the years and there's a lot of jurisprudence on defamation, you have no answer to that. Do we need to criminalize freedom of expression? No. And that is why the government must act in line with the objectives of the African and the various treaties and conventions including the United Nations constitution. The actions of governments should promote human rights in this context, freedom of expression and not to stifle it, which is why and the court agrees with us and the court has agreed with us that Section 24 must be repealed to conform so that it can be in line with Article 9 of the African Charter, Section 39 of the Constitution and various conventions and treaties by Nigeria certified to ensure that the freedom of expression of regulations and guarantees are not unnecessary in this context, what we've seen is the subjecting wordings of Section 23 and the misuse of Section 24. Those two reasons is why the court agreed with Sarah and gave that to him which is yet to be enforced by him. Okay, but when you're talking you're talking for the people because the people are the ones who get prosecuted as it is. We see radio and TV stations being clamped down on because they express themselves. We also see, for instance, there's a journalist, Akbar Jalingo that has just been released today after so many days in custody because he wrote something and asked a question and someone who is related to the governor of his state felt insulted and it was taken to prison and this is not the first time and there are so many other instances that abound. But when we argue for the people what are we also arguing for? Let's say politicians who are being slandered is subjective anyway who are being taken to the cleaners as it were. What part of your argument is also protecting them? You had mentioned earlier that the laws in this age that limit of human rights where human rights can be free of the rights of others and that is why the law has made prohibition in civil law from defamation which of the laws if it's written in a permanent form and it will be called slandered if it's uttered in temporary form and that is why it is a civil law it need not be made a crime it needs to be sued if it is a civil law and there are remedies for defamation you could get done if you should get reparations there are a lot of remedies and people would go to court on this instance so the question is why should freedom of expression and the breach of it if the rights of people are breached why should it be criminalized? it's a civil law and a civil remedies why should it be criminalized? and that is what has lent itself to these misuse that we've seen rights of people who are defamed or slandered as it were there are so many for them in law and they should think that though I don't seem to understand because if you're being arrested for defamation and you call it defamation it sounds as if it is alright because the laws are already there but if you are arrested because you use the other term that is cyberbullying or cyberstalking it seems to be something that you should not be arrested for make it make sense to me how someone can it could be a libel, it could be a scandal and then you can be arrested because the laws are there for them and you're saying they should not criminalize the same thing that you are being arrested for if you call it a different name I just don't seem to understand I'm not arguing basically there is a civil law there is a civil law and there are a lot of divisions of law a civil law would be the right hand of the leaders of the civil law and those themselves or between organizations or institutions of comment as the case may be and in that case a civil law will be for instance breach of contract and defamation is a civil law as it were so even as we are having this conversation I call you a mania you don't like you will go to court against me and ask for damages or whatever reparations you want that is a civil wrong that is not a crime but section 24 makes it a crime which means it is a crime against the state which is why law enforcement agencies would have to come in to arrest you so ideally for what this should be arrested for defamation because it's a civil wrong you can't go to court but when it becomes a crime in this instance section 24 it means that it is the state's prosecutor on behalf of another need to not be criminalized there are remedies in civil law that can be explored and that is being explored okay I get the argument right now but to be fair it is not really a Nigerian thing you know that it's not even an echo as thing because we have instances for instance in France where 50 year old woman is facing trial she was being arrested for publicly insulting president Macron we also had in September 2021 where something like that happened and a 62 year old person was arrested as well so why is it such a big issue here in Nigeria and Eko was that you needed to go to court when it seems as if it is happening everywhere else or is it that everywhere it is happening it should be condemned in the same way I'm not aware of these instances that you've mentioned and I'm sure there are contextual facts that are possibly placed in a different format but be there that it may social media and the digital it brings along the new trend of itself which means that writer accrued to us naturally the real world sometimes has been translated to the virtual space that itself has brought up a lot of issues and it's a global thing that the limits and the extent of these rights are being tested for the digital rights, data rights and all that but that does not remove the essence of the fundamental rights at this is enshrined in various laws of countries and in this context in the constitution and the african chart and various treaties and conventions that are here has ratified which is why the issues of these laws in a democracy is bad not only for us as citizens but also for democracy people can't get in the trouble and the chart for a crime for a statement that has been made which in itself is not obscene, is not insulted but because the recipient fake feels and that is very important for us to understand it, the recipient feels insulted, then the activates criminal procedures against you, this sets a very difficult trend for democracy particularly in Nigeria where we are being known to have little tolerance, particularly in those in public offices, who have little tolerance for the right and the nuisance and all that and living that aside do you think the laws that were enacted before the craze of social media and everything that has given people the opportunity to talk the way they talk and get into trouble insulting 10 years ago could be a very big insult now but it's not covered by the law so do you think we should start by you know tweaking a little bit about the law or yeah, touching the law a little bit or we should just start by saying we stop everything concerning, trying to get people to pay for killer statements that they make do you think our laws can still stand that the law may be from meaningful conversations which as you know is very important to democratic practice people have the right to exchange ideas and it's very interesting that politicians when they want to get the votes of people use every available platform including social media to come back for votes including speaking against the opponents and it is fine at that time until they get political power and then all of a sudden the same tool and history they used to fully express themselves in these incidents it comes in to you that gets other people in trouble and that is why we need to understand the concept of freedom of expression as a right it's manifestations in various contexts that is the use and the laws it were so to answer your question yes, laws as tools of social engineering sometimes are slow to cut off reality and sometimes depending on the aspect of each country's jurisprudence sometimes the law also sets a precedent that society follows subsequently as part of its social norms so you are asked do we have laws that adequate for the issues, these digital issues yes, the laws are not perfect, laws are not meant to be perfect which is why they are amended and in this instance judicial pronouncements are if these are one of the ways of amending laws because the court has held that section 24 a conflict with article 9 of the African Charter and should be repealed and that means that section 24 as it stands to be of the several kinds are it's not annoying it is not a law that should be used at all in the younger men must obey that all of course so do we need to tweak the laws not necessarily so what we need first and foremost within the context of our democracy is to have strong institutions that can apply the laws I can tell you young world that our laws are not perfect but we have a much more bigger problem in the application of the laws by the various institutions tasked with this statutory duty and that is what we need to fix first even as we are in the process of amending the laws and that is why you see the various manifestations of these misuse of these public institutions it's really becoming the matter of state capture if we allow this to go on it doesn't go before democracy at all but this issue of strong institutions instead of strong people and all that is there's always a back and forth in the case of egg and chicken which one came first and all that what do you treat first and the others an institution is governed by laws and we have the laws an institution is governed by rules and we have the rules but they still are not working so what is that element that is missing that is making our institutions not to be strong enough we have a constitution that people are clearly not following the law enforcement agencies are flaunting the law the politicians are doing the same even the people themselves are doing the same because no matter what you do whether you are stealing from government coffers or you are beating traffic because you think nobody is looking a crime is a crime so what is that ingredient that is lacking that is making our institutions not to work the way they should work and people are rather bigger than the institutions thank you I will attempt to answer to define the cause of this malage I would say this is the lack of political view from the highest office in Nigeria from the president from that of the east you have as you said we have rules the laws created institutions and created parameters for them to act including providing for sanctions whether for acts of omission and commission so the question is how far those laws being implemented by these institutions if you ask me very weakly and that has led us to this point and that again brings us back to the social contract theory we all know that we have these rights we have these powers and human beings which is why they are called natural rights but we do not get an aspect of this power to the state in this instance to enforce those rights on everyone to protect everyone so but when the state becomes corrupt when the state becomes inefficient what you see is exactly a same problem as the country is what that needs to which is why we need strong institutions that are not stronger than the law we need strong institutions that obey the law and institutions of course are not made up of robots they are made up of people structures are made up of people which is why we need every political office including the president obeying the laws but in a country such as Nigeria where we see a series of governments state governments and individuals public institutions disobeying orders of court what do you expect that is against the the rule of law it is against the court tennis of democracy and nobody gets punished for it we talk of corruption every now and then we have seen in the news that we found that they are corrupt they are liable and nobody gets punished for it what do you expect and so that is what has led us here so rather than complain about the laws we have which I agree with you is not perfect we should talk about what we are about is to ensure that the institutions function again the institutions are not stronger than the law they must operate within the confines of the law it means even the judiciary is not of the law they interpret the law they enforce it they basically represent the police they are not about the laws they operate within the confines of the law but what we have seen so far is the exact opposite and that unfortunately has led us to where we are presently nearly every 10% of women in Nigeria it is so sad really it is sad I must congratulate Sarah for a milestone judgement that they have and we hope that things will work but while we talk about not gagging the people would also like to balance it if you were to advise because it's always been a problem on the one hand we'll be talking about people making killer statements but they need to let people express themselves and all that but there has to be a balance at one point Twitter was banned from Nigeria because of a statement that was made against the president whether that was right or wrong but it tells you that there is a need for all of us to know to respect ourselves in one way or the other so if you were to advise on the kind of things to be put in place so that there will be sanity in the social media space and also there will be freedom of expression from the people what would you advise that should be done as we wrap up now unfortunately I would like to go into what I said earlier it means the decisions must walk and oppress within the confines of the law we have rules already the constitution provides for rights including freedom of expression and also provides for the limits of those rights it gives the judiciary the powers to be the arbiter between providing rights and obligations and duties between individuals, between governments against them, between governments and the people but the question is here the courts give government and the government disobeys those government what do you expect to have so again when you talk of social media and the need to govern aspect whatever that means we have laws already we have the limits of these laws and we have defamation laws but how are they being enforced which is why you see criminal laws that can be used they are being used more than any other law and that is the sad and unfortunate thing that we've seen happening which you don't believe democracy Kola Wale we are still with you and I would like to just wrap up with you very fast as as fast as possible I'd like to challenge Serap what you are really doing to make sure that you educate the people more about their rights and responsibilities cultivate the habit of patriotism and every other thing that we need because at the end of the day it is not the institutions that are not having the requisite things that should make them work the laws are there, the rules are there and everything, the buildings are there even though that is not what we should describe as the institutions when we are talking about it but what are you doing what is your plan to make sure the citizens come up to speed and even help in the fight that Serap has been fighting all along to make our country, our climate everything Sena as everybody likes to say Sena climate and all that Nigeria should move from where it is to another place a higher pedestal so what is your plan to make sure the citizens are up to speed with what you have been doing, the fight you have been fighting and to stand up to their responsibility very briefly please thank you, a public enlightened mind is also a critical part of their advocacy which is why this kind of letter to the government is what we call a true problem that we can see it informs the government and calls on them to fulfill strategy obligations and also reminds the people of the rights and the duties and the obligations that they have, even this conversation that we are having presently also fulfills that very important obligation it is enlightening people in this education and calling on people to obey the laws so that is what we do as part of our initiative and I really felt that when your freedom of expression was briefly taken and you understand how it feels when your freedom of expression is stifled in anyway okay well thank you very much for coming to enlighten us on what is happening and everybody that needs to collaborate will collaborate with you keep doing the good job and make sure you do more to enlighten us as well so that we can help you in that fight thank you so much for being a part of our program today thank you very much okay we will be talking with Kola Wally or Lua Dari a deputy director of SERAP and we will take a short break and when we return we will be talking to another guest stay with us