Connect with us

News

Twitter Ban:FG Infringes On The Right Of Millions -CITAD

Published

on

Malam YZ Yau

 

The center f or information technology and development CITAD says the twitter ban by the federal government is an ill-advised and unacceptable action by the federal government.

The executive director of the centre Malam Y Z Ya’u made the statement during a press conference held in Kano.

 

According to Malam Y Z Yau the Federal Government, through its Minister of Information, Mr. Lai Mohammed announced the suspension of the operations of Twitter in Nigeria. This suspension followed the action of Twitter in deleting a tweet by President Mohammed Buhari which the platform concluded had violated its community standards.

He pointed out that CITADexpresses shock with such an ill-advised action by the Government.

The Head further said they are surprised that the president could allowed himself to be wrongly advised. The quality of advice that he received shows an extremely level of ignorance of the working of Over the top (OTTs) in the world.

“First, Twitter does not need to be in Nigeria for its business to strive. By suspending its operation in the country the government is not hurting the interests of Twitter but rather jeopardising the jobs of the Nigerian staff of Twitter and more fundamentally, derogating the right of Nigerians to freedom of expression which is guaranteed in both our constitution and in the Africa Peoples and Human Rights which Nigeria is a signatory to, among other covenants of human rights.

Twitter Ban: FG Orders Prosecution of Offenders

The platforms of OTTs are important component of the internet, access to which the UN has decided as constituting a fourth generation of rights that all citizens should enjoy.

By shutting down access to Twitter for the millions of Nigerians, the government has totally curtailed the rights of Nigerians to this service.

Second, it shows the lack of understanding of the state of technology in the world. Many countries have unsuccessfully tried to block social media access for their citizens, but the increasing number of by-pass technologies means that such an action is fruitless and rather a drain on useful resource that could be used to support educating citizens on how to use the internet.

Third, when government argues that Twitter was selective in punishing misuse of its platform, it betrays a lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Twitter like, any other OTTs, has its community standards. Violating any of these standards elicits punishment which ranges from deletion to suspension and to even outright ban on the platform. One of the standards is that no message that is threatening violence against other people should be allowed on the platform. ”

YZ Yau said the Presidents message was a threat to violence. It does not matter that he was responding to a violent situation. That other people had in the past made similar messages and were not so punished is not an argument for two wrongs do not make a right.

Advert

The statement further said the ban illustrates the fourth nativity of the government. When the Government or the President noticed that some people were spreading messages inciting or inviting violence, what they ought to do was to flag this off with Twitter. Once a message is flagged the relevant OTT (in this case Twitter) is duty bound to respond to it by taking action. When it is dissatisfied with the action taken, it can appeal the case and in the case of Facebook, it has a global Independent Board of Oversight which deals with controversial appeals and whose decisions or rulings are binding on the OTT.”

The other aspect of the naivety of the government response is that it does not understand the nature of hate speech for which it has over a long period been pushing for a legislation. One of the key attributes of hate speech for it to catalyse into violence is that it should have a powerful speaker. That powerful speaker can earn his or her status on the basis of statutory power (such as a President) or love such as celebrity or cultural assets such respected community leaders or even religious capital in the case of religious leaders. What a powerful speaker does is that he makes the audience to commit the call to action embedded in his or her message. They could act the call to action either because they fear the speaker or love her or him or has institution of violence that could do his or her bidding. In the Nigerian context, clearly President Buhari is a powerful speaker who earned his status because of the office he occupies but also, additionally, because he has political and probably, ethnic followers. His message has a clear call to action which is to incite violence against his target. It is clear that his message, given his position as President has the potential to catalyse violence. It is entirely different from a riffraff ranting on twitter.

However, all these are by the way, the substantive issue for us is that we see in the act of the president a vicious intolerance of dissenting views. What Twitter had done was a mild criticism of the President but the president responded with an over kill. Clearly if President Buhari where the President of USA when twitter banned President Trump, he probably could have ordered the army to take over the company and dragged its management and owners to prison.

This intolerance of dissenting views is dangerous to democracy and unacceptable. It also is unnecessary and uncalled for given the situation that Nigeria is in, a situation that requires building bridges through effective communication rather than one of responding in kind.

We also fear that this act is preamble to the long ambition of the government to control access to the social media in the country.

Over the last six years, it has tried to do this through legislation unsuccessfully and now it wants use the response by Twitter to start a piece meal effort.

This is acceptable, undemocratic and unconstitutional.
We call on the government to withdraw its suspension and allow Twitter to carry out its legitimate business unhindered.

The government should allow Nigerians unhindered access to the platform. What the Government ought to do is to begin to educate and enlighten citizens on how to use the social media and not how to prevent them from using it.

We join millions of other well-meaning and patriotic Nigerians in demanding an immediate restoration of access to Twitter and a proactive safeguard against similar action to other OTTs.

We call on the National Assembly to declare the act of the president as illegal and unconstitutional and proceed to provide a legal clarify by enacting a law that prohibits presidents or any other authority from blocking any internet platform.

As an organization dedicated to the use of information technology to promote development and good governance, we are prepared to help in the campaign for better use of the internet but even more, we are ready to help Nigerians reclaim their right to access to twitter, among other OTT platforms by building their capacity on by bypass technologies.”

News

President Tinubu Adds Days to Working Vacation, Returns at Weekend

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will return to Nigeria this weekend after extending his working vacation in Europe by a few days, the State House announced Monday evening.

The President departed Nigeria on August 30 for London to begin the working vacation, which was initially expected to last three weeks. According to a statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the President has since relocated to Paris, France, where he held meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Mr. Vincent Bollore, whose media group includes Canal+, Multichoice, and Universal Music Group.

Despite his absence, the statement emphasized that President Tinubu has remained actively engaged with domestic affairs, particularly directing an independent panel to investigate the deaths of 37 illegal miners in Minna following their detention by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps.

Advert

The President has delegated Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent him at official functions. However, Vice President Shettima departed Abuja on September 20 for New York to attend the 81st United Nations General Assembly. In his absence, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, will continue to represent the President at official engagements.

On the political front, the statement noted that Senator Abubakar Yari, Director-General of the Presidential Campaign Council (PCC), has been leading consultations with prominent traditional rulers across the country alongside other notable party leaders.

The extension comes as the President’s initial three-week vacation timeline elapsed, with the State House confirming he will now return to the country at the weekend.

Continue Reading

News

Court Adjourns El-Rufai’s N1 billion Suit Against ICPC, AGF, Police

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Monday adjourned a N1 billion rights suit filed by former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and others until October 27 for a definite hearing.

Others named in the suit are the Inspector-General (IG) of police and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the second and third respondents, respectively.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the suit to allow counsel to the former governor, Akinyemi Aremu, to respond to the counter affidavit filed by the AGF opposing the claims.

When the case was called, Mr Aremu informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing.

Counsel for the AGF, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, however, told the court that the AGF had filed a counter affidavit.

She prayed the court for leave to move their motion seeking an extension of time to deem their counter affidavit as being properly filed and served.

El-Rufai’s lawyer, Mr Aremu; Ezekiel Rimamsomte, who appeared for the IG, and the ICPC counsel did not oppose the application, and the judge granted it as prayed.

Mrs Abdulmalik then adjourned the case until October 27 for a definite hearing.

Earlier in the suit, the ex-governor sued the ICPC, the chief magistrate at the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja, the IG, and the AGF as first to fourth respondents, respectively.

He, however, dropped the name of the magistrate from the case following his inability to specify the name of the magistrate who was sued as the second respondent, after the judge made the observation.

Mr El-Rufai is, therefore, demanding N1 billion in damages against ICPC, the IG and the AGF.

Advert

In an originating motion on notice marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, dated and filed February 20 by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2:00 p.m. by the ICPC and IG amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

He said it violated the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

Mr El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

He sought an order directing the first and third respondents (ICPC and IG) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

He also sought an order awarding N1,000,000,000.00 (one billion naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages, among others.

In its counter affidavit, the ICPC said it received a petition against Mr El-Rufai and, acting on it, commenced an investigation that led to the search at his residence.

It argued that its operatives acted under a valid search warrant issued on February 18 and executed on February 19 between 1:37 p.m. and 3:56 p.m. at 12 Mambilla Street, Asokoro, Abuja.

The commission said its officials were accompanied by Nigeria Police Force personnel and that the exercise was witnessed by Mr El-Rufai’s wife, Hadiza El-Rufai, and his son, Mohammed El-Rufai.

The ICPC, which urged the court to dismiss the suit, listed the items allegedly recovered from the residence.

The police, also in its counter affidavit deposed to by Ewa Anthony, argued that it had the statutory power to detect, arrest, investigate and prosecute offenders.

It argued that the search at Mr El-Rufai’s residence was carried out pursuant to a search warrant issued by a competent court of law.

The anti-graft agency disagreed with the ex-governor, insisting the search warrant was a genuine court order.

It said its officers who carried out the operation complied with all applicable legal procedures in executing the search warrant.

According to the police, the applicant is trying to use the honourable court to shield him from the security investigation and prosecution in court.

It, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

Continue Reading

News

Tinubu Becomes First Post-1999 Nigerian President to Miss Three Consecutive UNGAs

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

President Bola Tinubu has again delegated Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, marking the third consecutive year he has personally skipped the global summit since taking office in 2023.

The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, said on Monday that Tinubu is “currently on annual leave,” describing the delegation to Shettima as “neither unusual nor a diminution of the country’s diplomatic standing”. Idris insisted Shettima “carries the full mandate of the President and the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and will deliver the national statement.

However, the explanation has done little to quell public scrutiny. Tinubu last personally attended UNGA in September 2023 for the 78th session, shortly after his inauguration. He has since been absent from the 79th session in 2024, the 80th in 2025, and now the 81st in 2026—a pattern unmatched by any Nigerian president since the return of democracy in 1999.

Advert

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, through his media aide Phrank Shaibu, demanded a “full explanation,” arguing that three consecutive absences “could no longer be dismissed as coincidence or routine delegation” but constituted “a pattern of presidential evasion”. Atiku questioned whether Tinubu’s “documented history with United States law-enforcement agencies has become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations”.

At the centre of the opposition’s claim is a long-standing U.S. forfeiture case in which $460,000 was held in an account linked to Tinubu, after American authorities alleged the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in prohibited financial transactions. Atiku also questioned why the administration spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists to improve Nigeria’s standing in Washington while the President repeatedly stays away from New York.

The Presidency has not directly addressed the drug-case allegation. A ruling party chieftain, Olatunbosun Oyintiloye, dismissed the claims as “political propaganda,” noting that no U.S. court has reopened a criminal case or pronounced Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking.

Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, had earlier announced that Tinubu would attend and that a seat had been secured for him near U.S. President Donald Trump. That seat remained empty.

Continue Reading

Trending