 The ECOWAS Court of Justice restrains the federal government from prosecuting Twitter users. And a federal lawmaker, Farouk Lawan, is sentenced to seven years imprisonment for taking bribes of $500,000. This is PLOS Politics and I am the Sao-Gi-Oh! Welcome once again to PLOS Politics. The ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja has restrained the federal government from imposing sanctions, harassing, intimidating, arresting or prosecuting Twitter users pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed against the government by the Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project CERAP. The suit argues that a suspension of Twitter in Nigeria and criminalization of Nigerians using Twitter has escalated the repression of human rights and restricted the rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom in the country. Meanwhile, the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, has said that the federal government's ban on Twitter's operations was in the country's interest. Joining us this evening to discuss this is Riyo Dari Atoye and Leonard Ibute, both political analyst. Thank you both for joining us. Good to have you here. I'm going to start with Mr. Dari Atoye who's joining us via Zoom. Good evening, can you hear us? Yes, thank you for having me. Thanks for joining us. All right, so you were at the seat in yesterday and I got to see a few of the clips from that sitting. So quickly share with us what took place there and what your views are from the ECOWAS judgment to, of course, the reaction from the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed. Well, thank you very much again for this opportunity. Yeah, I was invited by a couple of journalists yesterday when I got there and the House Committee on Information said it was an investigative year in not a public one. However, I insisted that as a citizen of the Republic of Nigeria and indeed as one of the people paying the salaries of our federal lawmakers that I have the right to make my own contribution and I was partially allowed to do so even though I was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee. We sedentally was the one who drafted the NBC, the contentious NBC bill. I think what we had from Alagi Lai Mohammed was also indirectly summarized by one of the lawmakers that the aggregate of what we've seen so far could be pointing to, you know, a totalitarian state brewing. And it's important just like I also said yesterday that I told the Alagi Lai Mohammed that no Nigerians, Nigerians that I know that has pursued independence of the media that the media should not be censored. The media should not be gagged like Alagi Lai Mohammed when it was in opposition. Of course the facts are there before the public statements are there in terms of speaking and defending the right of the media not to be censored, not to be regulated. Well today Alagi Lai Mohammed is in the saddle and I think it is also the responsibility of Nigerians not to also allow Alagi Lai Mohammed, you know, to lead the government of general worry to gag Nigerians and also undermine free speech. And I must say that the ruling by the ECOWAS Court is a welcome development. We have to protect this democracy and I think that ruling but trust one thing. You know, government will go, government will come but this country will remain and it seems it's important that democracy should continue to travel not just in Nigeria but also in Africa. And that court actually recognized the right of Nigerians to free speech and the right of Nigerians to make use of Twitter and such order was like I say in order. And some of us believe that the appropriating has been done even though the government either has said that they are going to obey it. But the most important thing is that order was made and was made in the overall interest of Nigeria. So I want Nigerians, all Nigerians to be on their guard that even when Hitler was in the saddle, a lot of people praised him, the parliament and even members of his own country praised him. Some of the things he was doing then but today Hitler is an outcast globally. So basically what the government is pursuing, Nigerians must not allow it. And we also have to be worried that a government that's an outgoing government is trying to gag Nigeria and he's totally unacceptable. All right, hold on Mr. Toei. I'm going to move to Leonard Ibute. One of the statements of course accredited at the Minister of Information is that this actions is, you know, are being taken in Nigeria's interest. You know, some people of course agree with him. There's people who have also made statements like Twitter insulted President Mohammed Al-Bawari and of course insulted Nigeria as a country. So what's your reaction to the ruling by Ekoas and also do you agree with the Minister of Information? The last question is more difficult to answer. The first one is straightforward. It's a legal ruling. I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure legal arguments were presented, analyzed and the judges came to a good conclusion. If the conclusion had been to the contrary, it would have been suspicious because there's a common sense that guides law. And so to that extent I agree with Toei and also with the court that it is wanting to say you don't want Twitter operating in Nigeria. It's a different thing to outlaw Nigerians using Twitter because it's a web platform. And to the extent, I might be in Japan, I might be in Kenya, but I have a Nigerian account and so you can, I mean, it doesn't really make sense from a tech point of view and also from the point of view of the fact that Twitter is not directly a Nigerian thing. You can use Twitter to talk about America and Japan and so on. So it doesn't make sense to prosecute Nigerians for using Twitter. But it is a company, it is a business operating in Nigeria and to that extent the laws can apply to say for XYZ raising national security, whatever you don't want them operational at the moment. Coming to Lai Mohamed's comment about the legality of the issue or about his view on the issue, for example. That's a more difficult argument from an analyst's point of view. All of you would know that I'm not a big celebrator of Lai Mohamed. But we all know it is on debatable that social media platforms are the highest sources of disinformation, false information, misinformation, lies and so on. And even the assent of the present government was built on social media lies. So it was with Trump, so it was with a lot of other agencies and peoples and institutions that use falsehood and lies and disinformation to pursue political or business objectives. So it is a truism that this medium of communication is the highest brewer of falsehood. Now if the whole world agrees and even the social media platforms agree that the two they have can be dangerous and therefore they have put some regulatory tools in place to outlaw certain communications, ban certain communications, remove certain communications, censor certain communications as it were, why is it then difficult? Why is it then such a tenuous topic for us to agree that maybe there should be some regulatory framework around this infinitely supreme source of falsehood and misinformation and lies? I mean this is an argument that intelligent people need to want to have, but when it looks like any regulation on social media is a violation of freedom of information, why are you regulated as plus TV? Why is the NTA regulated? Why are newspapers regulated? We need to have authentic true sources of truth, knowing that if it's coming out of this agency there is a logic applied. So even if it is false we know the logic of the lie, we know the logic of the falsehood, but when you create an avenue that reaches more people than the regular media, but it is an open source avenue where everybody puts everything they want with serious significant national security effect and even humanitarian effect, then that leaves a lot to be desired. And I think intelligent arguments need to be heard in that direction. Okay, so now let's hopefully have some of those intelligent arguments. Aria Dari, I know you're itching to say something. Lionel de Boute is speaking about some level of regulation, not necessarily falling in line 100% with Lai Muhammad, the minister of information, but agrees that there should be some level of regulation and it shouldn't be seen immediately as gagging the media. What do you think? I think Lionel has said that he's not a lawyer, probably if you look into the law books of the country, definitely we've found a lot of laws that actually can apply. And we have the cyber crime act that this government has been using, even though some of us are still contesting the section 24 of that very act. However, let me say this, I want my dear brother, Lionel, to tell me one single lie in the social media space like Twitter that has lasted 24 hours without being debunked. That's number one. Number two, what other countries have done is to engage Twitter for that in terms of if they have something concerning how to properly regulate or how to some of his tricks. I mean, some of his rules in terms of sensory information that are prejudicial or that are injurious to the people. And what we've seen so far is just an attempt to look for every opportunity to decide what the people says. And we must be very careful not to allow the president to see himself as the state, because that's exactly what happened when the tweet of a president, you know, because the tweet of a president was deleted for making what you call a genocide remark. And now they are appropriated as that's of the concern of the entire country. No, it's not so. That is an authoritarian, an authoritarianism that is being and we must be given into that. So I want Lionel to understand that some of these companies, the government have no problem that government should engage them have no problem that there should be some sort of regulations. Nationally, but not that the regulation that to be done just because to protect the interest of the ruling elite. There is a difference between protecting the interest of the ruling class or the ruling elite and the common people. And I can I can tell you that not this government is not doing this simply because they love the common man, but because the ego of the president has been produced. That was why they didn't bother when they were in the opposition. And there was no headline when these guys were in opposition. And my brother did not do a test to that. They went beyond everything. If the previous government had done what they are trying to do now, probably they wouldn't have won the 2015 elections. That's why we have to be very careful about this country. True, true, true. So while we can have a conversation around the timing of the current situation, right? That Buhari's tweets were removed by Twitter and therefore there's a reactionary measure from the government. Yeah, that's fine. There's also the Ansar's angle. So the signaling effect of that is negative and that we can argue that maybe the current government doesn't have the credibility to take the current measures. That's a separate argument, right? But if we stand on the body of truth and facts in itself, I mean, Trump was a sitting president and his tweets were censored and removed and all of that. America didn't ban Twitter because America also recognizes the good aspects of Twitter and all of that. But there are also other countries that will argue that the depth of maturity of the American democracy and general institution to handle that kind of whatever doesn't exist in other nations. And my question to the lawyers and all these other guys is this. If we will insist that Twitter, Facebook, and other social media handles censor what happens on their platform, why can we not extend the same argument to say that censorship must also attract criminal charges to people that deliberately falsify, deliberately put material out there to hurt people, hurt nations, and even hurt businesses? Well, I think there is already some of those acts in play, but Twitter is not going to call the Nigerian police to arrest anybody in Nigeria. Good point. So when the Nigerian government therefore says that the actions or inactions of both Twitter and Twitter users hurts national security and they present you. This is because when Lyme was talking yesterday, he wasn't talking about the issue that he raised, which was that Buhari's tweet was removed. He was saying that the suspicion from the Nigerian government is that that platform was being used to compromise Nigeria's national security. The question I expect people to have been asking me is how? What are the key areas that it has happened? And it is not the removal of Buhari's tweet that transcends national security. Maybe they have other information and I absolutely believe that forums like that actually do because that is how Boko Haram and Al Qaeda are radicalizing people. So it is, in fact, as much as I don't like like Muhammad and his antics and all of that, we need to actually investigate to say, is this true for the problem moment? So if we remove the credibility of the current government to address this issue as they are doing it, we have a real issue at hand that any serious government needs to address. Mr Atoy, you're going to step in next. I also want us to speak about the relevance of the hearing and where you think that would lead. But the presence of Twitter also exists. Twitter is also present in countries that have ISIS and have Al Qaeda and have some of all those countries and they still have been able to have some level of control. So if you look back just a little bit, the challenges that Nigeria government has had with Twitter are mostly by the answers protest and then they've mentioned Namdi Kanwan and the likes. I really quickly respond to that with the time we have and then quickly also tell us about the relevance of this hearing, where you think this will lead? Well, number one, I don't expect anything significant from this hearing because it's been a very narrow arena without listening to experts, listening to the public, listening to lawyers and even people who are opinion-moulders. You know, investigating and listening to Lime Muhammad alone without allowing the public hearing is totally uncalled for. Now, I just want to make clarification for my brother Luna to understand with her. Look at what Sheikh Gumi has been saying. Imagine it is Obada Milafia that is saying the same thing that Gumi is saying today who have been invited. So you can't trust the judgment of those people. What we must understand is that as long as we have the constitution, the constitution as the supreme document, as long as the constitution has protected someone, I don't expect us to try to strengthen this government to make some obnoxious law that will totally undermine everyone. One thing we must understand is that the only way to counter all this falsehood in the social media space is for more people to be aware, to have agents, to always be alert with their responsibility and debunk this news. And it's been happening every day, every day without season. And there is no limit to it. You can't relate some of these things that we're talking about. People who continue to make falsehood will continue to say or manner of wrong things. But I can tell you is to empower and strengthen this society is to become more aware and more educated and people will be able to counter some of these things. Nobody even spread some of these falsehood like the people in government. What do you do when a government reps inside to spread falsehood? They are not going to do anything against it. Like I said, Shegumi is today telling us that it is less harmful to kidnap children than for iPod to attack or let them attack these people. Yet it's nothing as affected, nothing has happened to you. Alright, let's now move on to speaking about the precedents that this sets. There's people who have mentioned that this sets a bad precedent for future Nigerian governments. You know, we as a people always like to do a thing where we say, well, you know, the previous government did it. Well, it happened in, you know, Basan just time. It happened during Yaduah's time. So, you know, we may as well ignore it now. So do you fear that this sets a bad precedent, you know, for future governments in Nigeria after 2023? Well, let me say, I'm not saying, I mean, indeed, indeed, that's why we are Nigerians are resistant. The fact that Nigerians are resistant this period would definitely help us ahead of 2023 or post 2023. And people have to be very, very careful. When you see some certain things that are being, I am a forecaster. I also have the capacity sometimes to reason along the line and just like you there, everybody, when you look at some of the things you have, some of these dots together, some certain things are not gelling. For instance, a government, an outgoing government that is held bent at regulating the social media and gargling free speech. An outgoing government that want to make Loretta or not chair, you know, to put Loretta or not chair in INEC. An outgoing government that is doing some certain things that Nigerians cannot understand. We have to be very careful. However, I think that Nigerians must rise up to say no to it because this government in opposition supported Nigerians, you know, in rejecting every attempt to gargling free speech, it has not started today and it's not going to stop even after this government. The most important thing is for Nigerians to want to defend their fundamental human rights. However, there must also be information for people to know how to defend their rights and also for people to be strengthened enough in terms of some of the things we are talking about here. And look, we have plus severe Africa here. People would definitely know where to look for superior information. When there is falsehood, people sometimes will turn into plus severe Africa, they want to know maybe this is true or not. They can turn it to another station and the people know how to fact check. Let's not give these things as if people only make some of these untruthful statements without all sorts of resistance. Like I said again, I repeat, no falsehood has lasted 24 hours that I know. People are always quick to debunk it, except if you don't want to listen to it. And the greatest problem today that we have are from Bandit, Boko Haram. This government has not come out to tell us that Bandit are using social media. They have not come to tell us that this Bandit or Boko Haram are using the social media. They have not. The only thing is whether I've seen something like more or less like Igbophobia, where they only talked about ESN and iPop and see that's the only problem that we have here. We must not allow this kind of narrative. I don't support the killing of policemen, the burning of institutions, I reject it, I condemn it. Whether it's behind either iPop or ECN, they should be prosecuted and brought to proof. But we must not allow this Igbophobia coloration. It is totally bad and unacceptable because the only thing that Lange Lyman said yesterday was talking about is ESN, iPop, and see that is the only problem that we have as a nation. It's totally unacceptable. So I appreciate what Steeve Africa is doing. We listen to this Steeve station and the agents get educated. That is not to say we must allow this dangerous narrative of people saying that social media is bad. I have my concern at times, but I'm happy that people are always there. I have seen foreign media, ABC, and all of them giving news that are totally false and they come to come and reverse themselves. That is the way it is. That's the point. All right, Leonardo, but I think you can wrap up this conversation. In a world where we think that any form of censorship of social media is an attack on free speech is a dangerous world. Because that is a world that has recognized that this is the single biggest source of false information, misinformation, and it's undoubted. It's fact. But we feel that any form of regulation, any form from any government, I'm not talking about the credibility of the current government to regulate it. That's a different matter. And I agree that certain things point to the fact that you need to have a moral place to stand to do certain things. But the truth is the whole world agrees from America to China agrees that this is the greatest source of falsehood, disinformation, misinformation ever. But to then say that any government that attempts to any means to at least put some sanity is an attack on free speech is juvenile in my view. Because plus TV is there as a source of truth. CNN is there as a source of truth. Channel's TV is there when they make a mistake, they come back to recant their apologize and all of these things. Nigerians don't watch these channels. They feed on the lies from social media. And when I say Nigerians, I mean the whole world. But what you're describing now, it seems like 70% of the content of social media is false. And that's not true. I don't know the percentage of falsehood. But on political information, that percentage is much higher than 80%. Not necessarily. If you have numbers, you can throw it at me. If you have numbers, you can throw it at me. But what I know is that if you categorize other sources of mass media and you put social media on one side, it is the greatest source of misinformation, falsehood and lies. Yes, but at the same time. If we agree that that is the premise. But every other source of mass media is regulated. Yet we have a phobia for regulating the greatest source of misinformation and lies. There is something deficient about that logic. See, I am for free speech. I am for free speech. You know that I'm not a fan of anything that affects the use of the government of this country, including the current government. I've been here to talk about Lai Mohamed and his position on the answers protest before. You know that I'm not a big fan. And I want us as Nigerians. He says he's not going to government and I absolutely agree. So why are we not looking at these whole issues in the context of a Nigeria instead of just the present government? And when we think like that, we'll probably see some sense in the fact that we cannot allow ourselves to go to setting rat holes because we don't have regulation, but we have a government that is constrained to give us national security objectives. And as a result of that, they need to now frown on certain things when we don't have enabling laws for them to do that. So those of you that are lawyers, you probably need to have a more open-minded view of these things. Mr. Atoye, I can squeeze in 30 seconds for you to say what you think about that. The fact that there is a large, you know, reasonable large amount of fake news on social media. Is that enough to want it immediately regulated? To some level? At all. I just want to refer my brother to bullet theory. You should go and read about the bullet theory of the mass media. Probably we understand what we're talking about there. The issue of the media being accused of falsehood, of peddling falsehood. I've always been there. And one thing we want people to understand is this. This social media thing is when it favors some people, it's good. When it favors, when it's not in your favor, it's bad. And we have to stop it. We need to have enough in the country. The whole world would disagree with you on that point, Mr. Atoye. Go on, Mr. Atoye. The whole world would disagree with you on that. Hold on, please. Go on, Mr. Atoye. I want to say this. Like I said, this country has a bond dance laws that are regulated. Some of these are referred into the Cybercrime Act section 24. Probably you should go and read it. This government has prosecuted people based on their posting on Facebook and Twitter. They've prosecuted people. A lot of cases are in court. So that's why I don't understand what my brother there is saying. What this government is looking for is to control speech, not the censorship. If it is censorship, if there are rules and regulations in a bond dance, that's why I don't understand what Leonard is saying here. People are in court being prosecuted by the same government for what they post. People are being jailed in the same country. So it means that there are rules and there are laws in place. It's to control our speech. What to say? Don't say this and don't say that. And it's not going to all go well for us. All right. Ariyo, Dari, Atoye, thank you very much. And of course, thank you for your service also. I'm guessing you're also going to continue following up with the hearings and seeing where it leads. So thank you very much for joining us this evening on Plus Politics. Thank you for having me. Absolutely. Leonard Ebute, thank you also. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate it. Get to hear your perspective. Thank you for staying with us. We take a short break now and when we return, we discuss how we can reduce court and trial processes in Nigeria using Farouk Lawan as a case study. We'll be right back.