Social Media Bill - President Buhari Remains Committed to Free Speech
President Muhammadu Buhari has reiterated the commitment of his administration to the protection of free speech in keeping with democratic tradition.
The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, stated this while reacting to the public hostility towards the social media bill now being debated by the Senate.
According to Shehu, Buhari has sworn to defend the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and will not lend his hand to anything that is inconsistent with the constitution.
LEADERSHIP recalls that the Senate last week passed for second reading, a bill seeking two years imprisonment with an option of N2million fine for Nigerians who post "abusive statements" on the social media.
According to the bill, where an individual through text message, tweets, WhatsApp or through any social media, post any abusive statement, knowing same to be false with intent to set the public against any person or group of persons, an institution of government or such other bodies established by law will be guilty of an offence and liable to two-years imprisonment or a fine of N2million.
But Shehu insisted that Buhari is not averse to lawful regulation, so long as the development is done within the ambit of the constitution which he swore to uphold.
He said, “The President said free speech is central to democratic societies anywhere in the world. The President explained that without free speech, elected representatives won't be able to gauge public feelings and moods about governance issues.
"As a key component of democratic principles," the President acknowledged that people in democratic societies "are so emotionally attached to free speech that they would defend it with all their might."
Shehu further explained that Buhari is fully aware of the public reservations about the proposed legislation but assured that there is no cause for alarm "because the Senate is a democratic senate. The President won't assent to any legislation that may be inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.”
