In a significant victory for online activism, the Speaker of the Nigeria House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, has withdrawn the controversial ‘Counter Subversion Bill’ following widespread public outcry. The bill, which aimed to penalize Nigerians for refusing to sing the national anthem and other activities deemed “subversive,” faced severe criticism for potentially infringing on human rights. This development underscores the growing power of social media in shaping legislative outcomes in Nigeria.
The Contentious Bill
The ‘Counter Subversion Bill’ was introduced by Speaker Abbas with the stated intention of addressing subversive activities by various groups within Nigeria, including militias, cults, and other proscribed organizations. However, specific provisions within the bill quickly sparked outrage among Nigerians, particularly on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter).
Some of the bill’s most controversial provisions included:
- National Symbol Disrespect: The bill proposed that any person who destroys a national symbol, refuses to recite the national anthem, or abuses a place of worship could face a fine of five million naira or 10 years imprisonment, or both.
- Defamation of Leaders: Section 18 of the bill criminalized the act of castigating or embarrassing the leadership of any community, religious group, or government entity. Offenders could be fined four million naira or sentenced to two years in prison.
- Allegiance to Foreign Entities: The bill also sought to penalize any individual who pledges allegiance to another country or renounces their loyalty to Nigeria. The punishment for this offense was a fine of five million naira or 10 years in prison.
- Support for Anti-Nigerian Organizations: Individuals who show loyalty to organizations that disregard Nigeria’s sovereignty or who agree to join such groups could face fines of three million naira or four years in prison.
- Disrespecting Authority: The bill proposed a three-year prison sentence for anyone who persistently disobeys or disrespects constituted authority. Repeat offenders could face seven years in prison or a five million naira fine, or both.
- Encouraging Secession: The harshest penalty was reserved for those who make statements or take actions that encourage others to seek the separation of Nigeria or cause unrest. Such individuals could be fined 10 million naira or sentenced to 25 years in prison, or both.
The bill also criminalized interactions with cults, criminal gangs, or proscribed organizations, both within Nigeria and abroad. Other offenses included conducting illegal roadblocks, imposing curfews, and organizing unauthorized processions.
The bill’s introduction coincided with a period of heightened public discontent in Nigeria, stemming from ongoing economic hardship and recent nationwide protests. The online reaction was swift and fierce, with ‘National Anthem’ becoming one of the top trending topics on X in Nigeria as citizens voiced their concerns.
A video of prominent activist Aisha Yesufu refusing to sing the national anthem during a public event went viral, symbolizing the broader resistance to the bill. Yesufu, known for her outspoken criticism of the government, declared that she would rather spend 20 years in prison than sing what she called “Tinubu’s anthem,” in reference to President Bola Tinubu. Her stance resonated with many Nigerians who viewed the bill as an attempt to stifle dissent.
Human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong also joined the chorus of critics, describing the bill as “insane” in an interview with BBC Pidgin. He urged Nigerians to “fight and reject this bill completely,” warning that its passage would mark the end of the right to dissent in Nigeria.
The bill was also seen by some as a response to the recent protests that took place across Nigeria from August 1-10, driven by widespread hunger and economic hardship. Others speculated that it was a move to suppress the ongoing agitation for the secession of the South-East region, led by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, who remains in detention.
In an attempt to quell the growing backlash, Speaker Abbas’ office initially released a statement clarifying the intentions behind the bill. According to the statement, the bill was not targeted at any specific individual or group but was introduced for the overall good of Nigeria.
The statement emphasized that the bill was part of Nigeria’s broader anti-terrorism framework and that similar legislation existed in other countries, including the United Kingdom, Spain, India, Turkey, Canada, and Australia. It also noted that the bill had been moved on July 23, 2024, long before the August protests began.
However, this explanation did little to satisfy the growing number of Nigerians who saw the bill as a direct threat to their fundamental rights. The continued social media uproar and the negative publicity surrounding the bill ultimately led to its withdrawal.
The swift withdrawal of the ‘Counter Subversion Bill’ highlights the increasing influence of social media and public sentiment in Nigerian politics. In recent years, Nigerians have increasingly turned to online platforms to voice their concerns, mobilize protests, and hold their leaders accountable. This incident serves as a reminder that in the digital age, no legislation can be passed without thorough scrutiny from an engaged and vocal populace.
Speaker Abbas’ decision to withdraw the bill, described by his spokesperson Musa Krishi as a reflection of his commitment to “listening to the citizens and fostering unity,” demonstrates the power of collective action. It also reinforces the notion that lawmakers must consider public opinion when drafting and promoting legislation.
The saga of the ‘Counter Subversion Bill’ is a testament to the power of online activism in modern Nigeria. The bill, which many feared would curtail basic freedoms, was ultimately abandoned due to the relentless pressure from citizens determined to protect their rights. As Nigeria continues to navigate its complex political landscape, the role of social media as a tool for advocacy and change will undoubtedly grow stronger, serving as a crucial check on legislative overreach.
