By Emma Obe
Since Twitter, the micro-blogging and social networking site, deleted a Tweet by President Muhammadu Buhari, there have continued to be many twists and turns in the relationship between the America-based social media company and Nigerians.

Suddenly, the Nigerian President, who hitherto turned taciturn, has begun to grant media chats and interviews to address pertinent and salient issues about national security, to which he had turned deaf ears even as they threatened to tear the nation apart.

One of the earliest reactions of Twitter to the decision of the Nigerian government to ban its operations was that President Buhari had not been granting live media chats and interviews to address issues about the country.

Last Thursday and Friday, media managers of the Nigerian President organised TV interviews with the President on Arise TV and the government-sponsored network, NTA. Even though the media chats were not live and did not seem to impress Nigerians, it was clear that the government was responding to Twitter’s criticism of the poor media attitude of the President to national issues.

Another very unexpected friend of President Buhari in the whole saga was immediate-past United States President, Donald Trump, who supported the Nigerian ban on Twitter and said he regretted he did not do the same as President of the US when Twitter took down his Twitter handle for allegedly using the platform to encourage his supporters to invade the invasion of Capitol Hill, Washington DC.

“Congratulations to the country of Nigeria who just banned Twitter because they banned their president,” Trump had said. He said he would have banned Twitter and Facebook, which also suspended him for two years but he said Facebook’s owner. Mark Zuckerberg “kept coming to the White House for dinner and telling me how great I was.”

Surrender, seek forgiveness and reconciliation, Nigerian Army urges Boko Haram

Apart from the criticism that the ban on Twitter was an infringement on the rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression and to access the media of information of their choice, critics of the government ban had lamented the economic harm the ban will do to millions of Nigerians, particularly youths who make money using the Twitter channel.

But , the Information and Culture Minister, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, has suddenly found an economic angle to the entire saga. Addressing the press on the ban on Twitter, Mohammed said online social media operating but not having an office in Nigeria were not paying the huge taxes that should have accrued to the country.

Consequently, the minister has dug into the policy books of the country and uncovered government’s powers to register online media who though have operational bases outside Nigeria, offer services in the Nigerian space.

“The cardinal thing is that Twitter must be registered in Nigeria; Twitter must be licensed in Nigeria and Twitter must stop using its platform for activities that are inimical to the growth of Nigeria or to its corporate existence.”

When it appeared that government was going to capitulate under local and international pressures to rescind its ban on Twitter, Twitter blinked first and wrote to the government to reconsider its decision to ban its operations in Nigeria.

As if to celebrate an interim victory, Mohammed sat back in his swivel chair and with a smile playing at both ends of his mouth declared that the ban contrary to what government critics have said was having effect.

“Twitter is losing money as a result of the action (ban),” he declared; and went on to reel out conditions the micro-blogging site would meet before Nigeria can reconsider the ban.

“Our conditions are already laid out. One, to do business in Nigeria, they must register as a Nigerian company. Two, they must be licensed. And three, they will have to refrain from using the platform for activities that are inimical to the growth of Nigeria, to the corporate existence of Nigeria,” Mohammed said.

More than 120 million Nigerians are hooked to the Internet and about 40 million of them have Twitter handles. And the spat between Nigerian and Twitter had drawn a lot of heat. Many human rights lawyers and groups have rued the ban and have threatened to sue the government to rescind the decision.

Even the National Assembly, whose members have Twitter handles, in a subtle way condemned the ban and only stopped short of calling on government to rescind the decision. The House of Representatives after some opposition members walked out during the debate on the ban, appointed a committee to investigate the ban and report back to the House within 10 days.

The United States government in condemning the Twitter ban, said, “Unduly restricting the ability of Nigerians to report, gather, and disseminate opinions and information have no place in a democracy. Freedom of expression and access to information both online and offline are foundational to prosperous and secure democratic societies.”

The statement signed by Ned Price, the US state department spokesman, however, said the US was supportive of government’s effort towards peace and economic progress. “As its partner, we call on the government to respect its citizens’ right to freedom of expression by reversing this suspension.”

The US government also condemned Nigerian government’s threats to arrest and prosecute Nigerians who have found alternative means of accessing Twitter as well as the directive by the National Broadcasting Commission to TV and radio stations to stop using Twitter.

Many Nigerians are still outraged about the Twitter ban and fear for its repercussions. A political activist, Ibrahim Adamu,has this to say, “Twitter and all other social media platforms are the last alternatives for the common man to express their own minds or to communicate between the citizens and their leaders. When these platforms are blocked, there is no way that ordinary citizens can communicate with their leaders.”

The saga is creating new definitions in international relations where there are emerging relationships between states and non-state actors. And questions are now arising as to how far telecommunications signals can cross boundaries of sovereign states without the consent and outright approval of the authorities of such states.

One of the strong reasons the Nigerian Information Minister gave for banning Twitter is that the organisation offered its platform for separatists and people that wanted to destabilise the country.

Mohammed says government now has enough evidence to show that Twitter was actually undermining the nation’s stability. He cites examples of when Nnamdi Kanu used his Twitter handle to incite actions against Nigeria and its officials.

Mohammed also accused Twitter and its founder, Jack Dorsey, of sponsoring the popular #EndSARS protest which almost paralysed the country last October.

“Dorsey actually retweeted some of the posts by some of the coalitions supporting the EndSARS protest. On the same day, he inaugurated a fund-raiser asking people to donate via Bitcoins,” Mohammed said on NTA.

“If you ask people to donate money via bitcoins for #EndSARS protesters, then you are vicariously liable for whatever is the outcome of the protest.

“We have forgotten that #EndSARS led to the loss of lives, including 37 policemen, six soldiers, 57 civilians while property worth billions of naira were destroyed.

“164 police vehicles and 134 police stations were razed to the ground, 265 private corporate organisations were looted while 243 public property were looted. 81 warehouses were looted and we are now saying we don’t have a reason to ban Twitter,” he said.

Nigeria does not seem to be the only country seeking to regulate the use of Twitter by its local population. India recently asked Twitter to comply with its IT rules or face “unintended consequences.”

The new rules issued by the Indian government called the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code require big social media companies to set up a grievance redress mechanism and appoint new executives to coordinate with law enforcement.
Social media firms should be “more responsible and accountable,” Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister for information technology, said. Under the rules, social media organisations are to remove content within 36 hours of receiving a legal order.