 Well, back with the breakfast and plus TV Africa, Sulemana Konde, a public affairs analyst, will join us on a first conversation as we look at the consent of CERAP. Now, in a letter signed by CERAP Deputy Director, Kola Waleo Luwadare, the organization has expressed serious consent about the shrinking civic space in the country. Assummed state governors and government institutions are reportedly using section 24 of the Cyber Crime Act, an order repulsive laws to crack down on anyone seeking to assert their human rights and media freedom. Now, it's interesting to note that the economic community of West African state echoers caught, had ruled in July 2020, that Cyber Crime Act violates citizens' right of expression. While describing it as vague, arbitrary, and unlawful, they also author the Nigerian government to repel or amend the provision. Meanwhile, section 24, subsection one of the acts made it an offense to send a message via a computer system which was grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent or meaningful character or to send a message or curse any such message or matter to be sent or to send a message knowing it to be false for the purpose of discrediting the parties involved. I mean, that's just that part of the Cyber Crime Act. Now, Sarah is urging President Mohammed Buhari to send an executive bill to the National Assembly to repel the provision of section 24 of the Cyber Crime Act on the offense of insulting or stalking public officials online by ensuring that the deletion of the provision from the act as ordered by the echoers caught. Now, Sarah, apart from that, is also urging the president to direct Abu Bakr Malami, who is the attorney general of the Federation and Minister of Justice, to withdraw all charges of insulting or stalking public officials online against activists, critics and journalists and show that they're released from unlawful detention and pay adequate compensation to those who have faced unfair prosecution on the basis of unlawful provision. Meanwhile, there's also an instruction to the president that Mr. Lai Mohammed, Minister of Information and Culture and National Broadcasting Corporation, or Commission, by the way, to immediately reverse the habitual and lawful fine of five million narrow imposed on channel television for purportedly violating the NBC code in the program with the Labour Party vice presidential candidate, Dati Baba Ahmad. Now we have a guest joining us, Sulemana Kande. Thank you so much. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me. I mean, so let's quickly get to the crux of the matter. First, I'd like us to, you know, look at the judgment. What do you make of the court order, you know, by echoist community, asking the reversal, saying that, you know, the section of that particular criminal cyber, criminal cyber act, it's in contraversion to the fundamental human rights of the people? Yeah, my take is this, as a democracy, and if we really want to get, we've come a long way to get into this particular position, we must make sure that nothing in any way or in any language stifles media freedom. Media has played a very huge role in the sustenance of our democracy up to this day. And at least we're not in a guerrilla republic or running the military rule again. And people have always argued that the media and the civil society are the fourth arm of government. So anything that stifles the media space is something any level of democracy should not be happy with. But at the same time, we must also understand that regulation of the media space is not out of this world, even in the advanced democracy of this world. Media or any other human endeavor is always regulated. And if we say that these mediums are not regulated, we'll be sliding into anarchy. So, well, this is a two-way thing. That is, just like a human right is a two-way thing. That's wherever your own right stuff, another person right start from there. So my take is this, instead of repealing that particular act, we should rather go for amendment, whereby we should have a case based on the merit. If some people have all argued that NBC should not be a judge in their own matter, rather media houses that contraven the broadcasting code or the ethics of journalism should be charged to court and from the court should make the pronouncement, not NBC. But people have also argued that no, NBC had that power or acting the law to give sanctions to any media house that contraven they had. So to me personally, I just felt that I've been a victim of media bullying before. And I believe that as human, we should find a middle ground to tackle this particular issue. That is, media should not be stifled and at the same time, we should preach responsible journalism. I understand your thoughts generally on this, but I'm asking that what's your position? Because what Sarah was talking about is making reference to the court ruling or judgment that was given by the Echoes Court in 2020, which has said that it has described that section of the cyber crime act as unconstitutional, unlawful, when you juxtapose it to the laws where Nigeria is part of a treaty, we're part of that particular treaty, in the international community. So I'm asking, what do you make of this? Yeah, cyber-stalking. Personally, if you ask for my personal opinion, public officials, I also have a personal life that you understand. And cyber-stalking that is come to their personal life, I'm not, I won't say it's good to allow people have their way when they attack public officials unjustly. But if it has to do with things that they have to do with their discharge of duty as a public official, at least they work on development. That's why we have case of investigative journalists at least looking into how public officials discharge their public duties among qualities. So for me, it's not the total repeal of that law, rather we should go into amendment of it. I'm not for the total repeal of that particular law, rather we should look at which of part of the law that abuse people in their religion, people, personal, human rights, and all that is, that's my take. No, so but if you look at article nine of the African chat on human rights and people's rights and article 19 of international covenant on civil and political rights, which Nigeria is also, you know, a party to, I mean, it's a state party to, they're saying that these particular laws, our laws are contravening human rights. So at what point do we even get to a part where we formulate laws that contravene, you know, treaties that we belong to that we are preview to and what their state. Now, if you belong to a certain organization and this is what they are stipulating and there's been a judgment and the fact that you are also practicing, you are a member to this, doesn't it, you know, doesn't it just reflect the fact that we're just a lawless people and we have no regard for the rule of law, whether or not it is internally or externally? Not at all. No law or treaties are made in isolation. Every laws and treaties have a purpose they're supposed to serve. So I'm looking at those and the article nine of those treaties you just mentioned now, it protects, that is media houses and journalists. No, I think that you're not even getting this entirely, Suleiman. It is not about media houses. It's about the fact that the human rights, fundamental human rights, when we talk about humans, we're not, first of all, before we're a human being, before we're journalists, before you become an institution, you're a human being. And Syrup is acting on the fact that if we already belong to you, we have agreed or we're party to some treaty, yes, and there's been a lot of ruling that's been given. They're saying that this contravenes it. You're saying that you have limited the people, not necessarily pinpointing to say, journalists, the set of people or clergymen or whatever it is. They're talking about the fact that you have fundamental human rights and fundamental human rights is not premised on a certain position or profession entirely. I think that that's where we're getting this conversation wrong. It's not about the fact that it's targeted at journalists, it's targeted at individuals in a free society, in democracy, in a democratic setting. And again, I ask you, the fact that we belong to a treaty, because I mean, you say that this loss is not formulated in isolation. And so before we are members of these, I'm not sure that this happened outside of our consent. We had representative, we're also a party to all of this. So when you become a party to a certain thing and then you come back home and then you have different laws that contradict what you have actually agreed to, does this really make sense in any way? No, not at all. If you get my point, I'm for this. And I say there, if you look at my introduction, I say any laws or any acts that stifled on the media should, I won't be a party to that, I should be looking to. Well, my point is this, why we have, for the mental human right, and I told you, human right is a two-way traffic. That is, wherever your own right to start, maybe someone right to also stop there. Someone used to say this, that you have the right to raise your hand into the air. But the moment that your hand is touching my own nose, I also have the right to complain. So if you're talking of human right, it's a two-way thing. The public officials are never one you are talking of. They're also human, just like the other person that is using that of sad delirium. So if this law works for everyone, either the victim or the perpetrators of this abuse of human right, it doesn't matter yet. My point is this, either the right there, when this right works, we must also look at all that into consideration. That is why the issues of media stifling comes in. That is if the media as a body also have a responsibility to make sure that any statement, and I think that's the first thing that comes in, that is anything, any right that threaten our national security, that is that right becomes a secondary. For example, if you have someone that comes to use your platform to incite or eat up or a quality, and I think the authority also have the right to also call whoever is doing that into action. So that's my point. So it's not about, my point is not really on the media or anybody, but any right that also stifled on other people's rights should also be a big check. So media or either media, either clergy or whoever it is. So any right that threaten our national security, that particular right should also be checked. So when I party to the ECOAS treaty, no doubt. We also have our own internal laws of solving a mechanism. If you look at all the advancements in the world, be it America, UK. So I'm also asking you, Suleiman, I'm also asking you, you also need to understand it where members of the ECOAS, because in the course of saying, hey, we need to understand the rights and what have you, is the fact that let's even take, for example, when we had the cash scarcity or the redesign, the policy redesign conversations going on. So we said, let's redesign the Naira notes and then we had the issue of cash non-availability and what have you going on in our space. Then you had the conversation where people said, the Supreme Court had given a ruling. And I'm sure that you probably were part of this conversation that the Supreme Court had given a ruling that those rulings should be respected, that the Supreme Court is supreme. So whether or not people are pleased with the judgment or the outcome of the Supreme Court, because it is the court of law that rule should be respected. So then again, we're saying that if the ECOAS court had ruled since 2020 and asking the Nigerian government, because that's the premise on which syrup is basing their conversational argument on, that there should be an implementation of the ruling of the ECOAS court. So we're not saying that whether the details of it, whether people should not respect rights or another person's rights is being ignored. But the fact that the court had given a ruling since 2020 in July, and it is yet to be respected, which they have stated categorically that you should delete or amend it and that has not been respected and we're in 2023. So what does this speak of the Nigerian government? So yes, you are saying that yeah, you're in support that it should not be deleted, it should be that. But the ECOAS court has been a ruling and that has not been implemented because we've had cases where governors of different state have set on that particular act. They are still using it to hone on people and act in different dimensions. And then the court had given a ruling. We are part of the ECOAS community. Does it even make any sense that we have no regard for the rule of law whatsoever, whether the laws that we make or the laws that we're party to? No, you've just mentioned it now. No, no, no, no, no, excuse me, sir. I had mentioned it. I asked you what your thoughts were about the ruling of the ECOAS court. And then you dive into another conversation. And so I'm bringing it back to you again that what do you make of it? They have, it has been very explicit. We're being on the rule of law. The court has ruled. It's a regional court, which we're part of. I mean, we're part of the ECOAS community. And then there's been a judgment saying, you have to disregard, you have to discard it. That particular act, you know, the cyber crime act, it's in contravention of the law. It's in contravention of human rights. It's a bitch for release on lawful. And they have given their ruling and they are saying that two things are involved. You amend or deleted entirely. There's no respect whatsoever because that has not been respected. So I ask you again, does it even make any sense? No, it doesn't. I'm just telling you this now. You may mention of a point now. I say no treaty, no law or act are made in isolation. You just may mention of the law says that you either amend or delete that section of the constitution. And we have to look at our peculiarity. Law is made by... No, excuse me, sir. I bring you back again to the Supreme Court judgment, which, I mean, the Supreme Court ruling that we've had. And you are also, I'm sure that you're also part of the people who said that the court, because whatever ruling that the court gives, because the court is supreme or the laws of the court should be abided, then it should be respected. So, I mean, you are now saying we should consider and what? Should we as a nation, excuse me, should we as a nation not have respected from 2020 the ruling of the Echoes Court? No, this is it. The ruling of every APS court, not even just APS court, regional court of West Africa now. So, that of a ruling is binding. And I told you that this is the wordings of the ruling. That is the letter of the law. It said those law that infringe on human rights should either be deleted or amended. I now said on my own personal opinion, I felt such law should be amended to reflect our reality as a nation. I now say that in human right, in the human right is a two-way traffic. That is any law that says that you should, yeah. Excuse me, sir. My question to you is, what does it make of us from 2020 that we have not implemented the ruling of the regional court of the Echoes? Which is also in line with your thoughts. That's what I'm saying. What does it make us as a country, giant of Africa? I'm with you. It doesn't speak well of us as a nation that we are a serial abuser of court processes that isn't be the APS court or regional court as the case may be. Yeah, you get to my point. So, the idea now is that such ruling 2020, from 2020 to now is a lot like three years ago, such ruling should also be looked into. What you must understand, the Echoes court does not work like the normal court you have in this country. Your representative has to prepare the same thing again. Either you are appealing the same, you have a case of saying that, oh, this is what we have been doing, or this is what we are doing as a nation. And executive order, the president has a right to also send down executive order down to the National Assembly, saying that social and legal law should be looked into. I get to my point. For my point to remain this, so these rules are not made in this nation. And each of these, when you look at it, you have to look at the merit. I get to your point. Rulemo is not a shawarma that is served on the table. You must obey, really, that it serve you right or not. But in my personal opinion, I believe that human right or whichever right we are discussing should have a two-way thing. That if you look at the merit of the law, you look at where should be amended. And if it is possible, you can even go on to what you need. Sulemana Konde, I'm sure that if you are very explicit with the ruling of that particular court, the regional court, it was very explicit, is simplicity in the words of the legal petitioners. He suggested that you either delete or amend, and that's very simple. So again, we're still having a conversation. Then we still have to get to a point where we're asking where a civil society would have to then pop the government as to respecting or acting in accordance to the tenets of a democracy, and especially when you're a big figure in the continent. Again, just before we caught the conversation or just call it a wrap at this point in time, I'd like to ask you now, just recently what Sarah was asking is that there be an executive view to that effect. What do you think? Do you think that that's going to be a reality? Do you think that this government, just a few more months before they get out, do you see that as a thing? They have also made several requests asking that all charges be dropped against those who have been arrested, journalists, activists and what have you. And to that effect also, asking the CBN of recent time to withdraw that particular fine, the NBC on Channel's television. Yeah, it's unfortunate that it has to get to that that a government agency start using a fine on the media houses. And I told you, any article that stifles the media space should be condemned by all of our democracy. So I am of the greatest opinion that the NBC should, withdraw such a fine against Channel's TV and at the other time and also look at the, a lot of journalists that have been locked up or being sued for one thing or the other. I think that's the best thing to do. But at the same time, I have my point. I believe that we should also treat the part of practicing responsible journalism, whereby the right of orders are respected. The piece of the country is also put at the foremost of everything we do. And also anything that trapped in our national security should not also be giving the space or the other than to try or even the head to try. Well, Suleiman Akonde, we have to go at this point in time. Thank you so much for being part of the show. We do appreciate you and appreciate your time as well. Thank you for having me. That's the size of it. This morning on the breakfast, we take a break. When we return, we look at the fact that Labor Union has vowed to mobilize workers against Tunibu's government, come first of June or in June, as against the removal of subsidy. Please stay with us.