Seven irrational, draconian provisions of Counter Subversion Bill Nigeria’s Speaker proposed

In reaction to the massive public backlash, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Abbas Tajudeen, announced on 14 August the withdrawal of his Counter Subversion Bill, which he touted as a proposed addition to Nigeria’s anti-terrorism legal framework and to be in line with “global standards.”

If the bill had progressed to become a law, PREMIUM TIMES reported, Nigerians would risk a jail term of up to two years or a fine of N4 million for any action considered to demean or embarrass a public official.

The bill was introduced on 24 July, just a week before the anti-government #EndBadGovernance protests began.

With the protest organisers planning another round of demonstrations on 1 October, the bill – reminiscent of the draconian laws of colonial era – serves as a stark reminder of the relentless efforts of Nigeria’s ruling class to constrict the civic space.

The bill contains other irrational provisions besides criminalising an act to embarrass a public officer. Some of such provisions are highlighted below.

1. Failure to recite national anthem, criticism

Section 8 of the bill seeks to punish any person who destroys national symbols, refuses to recite the national anthem and pledge, defaces or abuses a place of worship with the intention to cause violence and subvert the Government of Nigeria.

The penalty for the offences is harsh.

The bill provides that any offender “is liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of 10 years or both,” a copy of the bill obtained and reviewed by this newspaper show.”

Opponents kicked against provisions like this, saying the jail term or the option of a fine is disproportionate to the seriousness of the alleged crimes compared to the punishment attached to some other similar minor offences in existing laws.

Critics also say it appears to seek to limit personal freedom of free will under the guise of protecting national interests.

President Bola Tinubu signed a bill reinstating Nigeria’s old national anthem, which was adopted at Independence in May.

President Bola Tinubu [PHOTO: PRESIDENCY]

Critics condemned the move, which was made without consulting the public. Others also say it reflected an undue attachment to Nigeria’s colonial past.

2. Also, in section 11, the bill stipulates that foreign-based individuals or entities that make statements detrimental to Nigeria’s peace and security and citizens risk up to five years in prison or N5 million if they fail to retract them.

“A foreign-based person, group or organisation that makes statements injurious to the peace and security of Nigeria and relates with or is influenced by a locally based person, group or organisation, commits an offence. (2) A locally based person that fails to refute, condemn, and associate themselves with any statement made by a foreign-based person, group or organisation, commits an offence,” it reads.

3. Dogmatic acceptance, emblems

Another contentious provision is section 13, which provides that any organisation that persistently disregards, disobeys, or disrespects constituted authority, rules, regulations, or order or contravenes the law willfully commits an offence.

On conviction, such an offender will be liable to imprisonment for three years in the first instance and seven years for a subsequent offence or to a fine of N5,000,000 or both.

The provision will likely be abused. It can justify the highhandedness of people in positions of power and be calculatedly deployed against political opponents, the media and dissidents.

The Cybercrimes Act is a handy example of how easily law enforcement agencies can abuse laws with vague definitions and broad scope.

According to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 25 journalists have faced prosecution under the Cybercrimes Act since its enactment in 2015, in targeted clampdowns on free speech and media freedom.

4. The bill also provides that the ownership, possession, production, distribution, importation, handling, and use of established security, military, police, or intelligence agency uniforms, emblems, or accoutrements is supposed to attract a fine of N2 million or imprisonment for a term of two years or both on conviction.

The provision will put undue pressure on Nigeria’s entertainment industry, which often uses the emblems and uniforms of the police and military in movies and other entertainment works.

Without the bill becoming a law yet, there are already reports of how some Nigerians have been arrested and beaten by security agents for wearing clothing even with the slightest semblance of military fatigues.

5. Roadblocks, foreign loyalty

According to the bill, activities such as road blocking common during protests would be an offence. Section 3 of the bill seeks to make it illegal to block roads or carry out illegal processions, which will be considered an offence under the bill.

“A person who engages in illegal road traffic functions, illegal roadblocks, imposition of illegal curfews, conducting illegal processions, checkpoints, and other similar acts commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N2,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of five years or both,” the section 3 of the bill reads.

6. The bill also seeks to criminalise displaying loyalty to another country. Section 19 says any person who engages in such conduct that displays loyalty, pledges allegiance to another country or denounces their loyalty to Nigeria commits an offence.

It recommends N5 million as a fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both as punishment for the offences.

7. Subsection (2) of section 19 also seeks to make it an offence to inspire, instigate, encourage, or direct defiance, mentor, fund, abet, or conspire with any person, group or organisation in opposition to or destruction of existing state institutions, structures or values by illegal conduct or violent acts.

The vague and wide latitude of the provisions inadvertently leaves it at the authorities’ discretion to determine which action can be charged under this provision.

Worse still, it recommends N5 million as a fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both as punishment for the offences.

Not the first time

Many have described the bill as the latest in a series of efforts of political office-holders to use legislation to limit free speech and muzzle opposition, critical media, and dissidents.

The controversial bill comes amid citizens’ rising demand for accountability and good governance from their leaders.

If the proposed bill had become law last month, for instance, many people who participated in the #EndBadGovernance protests earlier this month would have faced diverse charges of “subversive” activities.

The bill calls to mind a similar one that the Nigerian Senate introduced in 2019 to regulate the use of social media in Nigeria. The legislation’s sponsor said it would curb fake news on the internet.

If the bill were passed and signed into law by the President, people guilty of making false remarks on social media platforms would face two years in jail or a N2 million fine.

In 2021, Nigerian media organisations united to launch a pushback against the then-President Muhammadu Buhari government’s brazen attempt to regulate social media and censor the press through controversial media bills at the National Assembly.

READ ALSO: UPDATED: Reps Speaker withdraws controversial bill seeking jail term for people who disrespect govt officials

The new bill by the Speaker indicates that the ruling class constantly wants to limit the right to freedom of expression in self-preservation, as the abuse of the cybercrime law has shown.

Proponents of such bills usually tie them to national security, which, they argue, supersedes individual rights.

However, opponents say that the vague provisions and vast scopes of many of such bills prepare the ground for likely abuse by law enforcement agencies. An example is how the police have indiscriminately deployed the cybercrime law against journalists at the behest of influential people.