Social media platforms undoubtedly helped transform the world into a global village but in making communication and connection easily accessible, the social networking sites have also been a veritable tool for purveyors of misinformation and violence. This worrying trend is one of the reasons most countries banned some social media sites. For instance, Telegram, a messaging app was banned in Iran and China based on national security. Russia blocked access to Telegram in 2018 when it refused to give the Federal Security Service backdoor access to its encryption keys. In 2019, Russia introduced a new internet law that gives the Kremlin the possibility to switch off connections within Russia or completely to the worldwide web “in an emergency”. The law also requires internet service providers to install network equipment – known as deep packet inspection (DPI) – capable of identifying the source of traffic and filter content. In practice, this will allow Russian telecommunications watchdog, Roskomnadzor to be more effective at blocking sites.
Data from the German database company, Statista showed that since 2015, over 60 countries have blocked or at least restricted access to social media networks. The research organization noted that about 3% of the countries surveyed by the online privacy and security company Surfshark block access to social media and communication apps and are mostly in Asia. The 2020 report showed that in China, North Korea, Turkmenistan and Iran, mainly foreign social networks such as Twitter and Facebook are banned. It should be noted that China has its own national ecosystem of social networks and communication apps. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates restrict the use of internet calls through voice-over-internet protocols, VOIPs. But in Africa, most governments have been toeing a similar line. The report disclosed that African and Asian countries had restricted access to social media most frequently in the past five years, even if the restrictions were temporary.
The restriction of social media by countries are often seen as a sign of dictatorship and most practised in undemocratic societies, although some are triggered by the rise of misinformation and threats to the government such as the case of Sri Lanka in 2019 when the country blocked access to social media sites following a series of coordinated terrorist attacks. In the last Uganda election, the Yoweri Museveni government banned social media ahead of the presidential elections, citing Facebook’s blocking of accounts supporting his government. Other African countries that have blocked or restricted access to social media at one time or the other include Cameroon, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Chad and Togo.
In recent times, there have been growing concerns to regulate social media due to the increasing spread of misinformation and incitement of violence. In Nigeria, a social media bill was proposed but it was met with protests, as many viewed it as a way of granting the government absolute control over the people. Last year, Lesotho issued regulations on how ordinary citizens use social media by demanding that users with more than 100 followers register with the Lesotho Communications Authority (LCA) as internet broadcasters. Countries that seek to block or restrict access to social media can do so in various ways. One of the most common ways they do this is by ordering internet service providers (ISPs) to block all internet access. It can politely request the restriction or use stricter measures. In a case when the government has direct control, blocking access can be easy. Another way to block access to social sites is through an autonomous system number. Each ISP has an ASN assigned to it. To use such a service to block access to a particular website, the government can create a smaller ASN with an IP range that includes the website it wants to block.
Beyond the public embarrassment to Nigeria however, the contradictions of the Twitter ban are simply mind-boggling. The fact that the government even contemplated such an action lowers Nigeria’s prestige in the comity of nations. The admiration of Nigeria’s democracy which nudged towards a higher level of respectability after the 2015 election deemed largely credible has been seriously dented. Free speech is guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution and the media, including online and social media constitute the fourth estate of the realm with a duty to hold government accountable. Thus the Twitter ban amounts to a mindless circumvention of the constitution and an assault on democracy that must not be tolerated. In a democratic dispensation, if any party feels aggrieved by any offensive or libelous publication, the right thing to do is for the complainant to go to court and press charges.
As embarrassing as it is, this ban retells the odious rat race of an inglorious past and evokes the infamous Decree 4, promulgated in 1984 by then military leader, Gen. Buhari, to shut down criticism during the obnoxious “war against indiscipline” waged by Buhari’s psychopathic henchman, Tunde Idiagbon. Decree No. 4 was the most dreaded, most repressive press law ever enacted in Nigeria. It was drafted to punish journalists who exposed the Buhari administration and its officials to ridicule or contempt. Like Decree 4, the Twitter ban has brought untold shame to Nigeria but more importantly to the President and his handlers who have embarrassed themselves and betrayed the people’s trust.
This national shame is made more painful and inexcusable because this is the time Nigeria needs men and women of character and conscience. Nigeria is Africa’s largest mobile market, with over 150 million subscribers, and a vibrant civil society, with many activists who use social media for their campaigns. The lamentation of an expectant public is loud and in the reckoning of the citizens whose taxes sustain the government, the goal of governance, which is to improve the wellbeing of the people, has taken a back seat while self-preservation by leaders is put over and above the national interests.
By imposing the ban on Twitter, it seems obvious that, the Information Minister is unaware that, President Buhari had appealed to the media to assist him in rebuilding the country. Historically, the Nigerian media has always been a formidable partner in fostering good governance and national unity. The media was crucial to Nigeria gaining political independence in 1960, serving as veritable platforms for the anti-colonial struggle, led by nationalists like Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Anthony Enahoro, amongst others, who were in the front trenches in the battle for an independent Nigeria. In the dark days of military rule, journalists fought endlessly to end dictatorship and return to democracy. Thus, when Buhari asked the media to assist in rebuilding Nigeria, he recognized that without social media platforms, the efforts of his government would be short on achievements.
The usefulness of social media goes much wider than investigating abuses or news reporting; it lies in holding governments to account; trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court as news-aggregation sites such as Yahoo and Google and social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram draw together global sources from newspaper websites and online news portals backed by independent journalists, bloggers and citizen journalists. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Most bloggers operate from their armchairs, not the frontline, and citizen journalists tend to be susceptible to bias and slander, but, so is much of the press. That notwithstanding, the relevance of social media to national development cannot be over-emphasized.
In this regard, the government must foster an environment that would encourage media freedom. The Buhari administration must make the Freedom of Information Act exist not only in letter, but in spirit. While the media should be willing to help in rebuilding the nation, it is incumbent on the government to articulate its policies and programs and create an auspicious environment for the media to operate. The media, including social media helps create awareness about such policies and programs to the people; an awareness that is very important because ultimately, it is the people who voted for Buhari that would also need to be informed of the activities of his government to justify the confidence they repose in him. Buhari who promised change must chart a trajectory of values in sync with his promise. Only purposeful leadership can ensure that, freedom of speech and the rule of law are given a chance while impunity is sentenced to the dustbins of history. Buhari must acknowledge that nations fail or succeed because of leaders and if Nigeria must overcome all its current challenges, including the centrifugal forces threatening national unity, it is up to him to lead by example.
