Justifying Allocations To Intel Agencies

The approval of a N4.87 billion budget for the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) by the National
Assembly (NASS) to track, intercept and monitor calls and messages on mobile devices, including Thuraya and WhatsApp may prove to be counter-productive to the constitutional role of the press. Clearly, that seems to be one of the ploys of the Federal Government to subdue the media.
This amount is said to be part of the N895.8 billion supplementary budget presented by President Muhammadu Buhari and approved by the two chambers of the federal parliament after having increased it by about N87 billion. Of that sum, N1.93 billion was earmarked for “WhatsApp Interception Solution” and N2.93 billion for “Thuraya Interception Solution” – a communications system used for monitoring voice calls or call-related information, SMS, data traffic, among others.
Also, Nigeria’s military intelligence arm, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), has secured N16.8 billion for foreign and national military intelligence. The DIA will as well use the funds to conduct enhanced voice and data monitoring. The funds will be used for interception of communications on tactical mobile geological platforms. The agency will also provide infrastructure and establish cyber intelligence facilities and laboratories across the country.
Federal legislators are also working on a series of legislative initiatives to regulate the media. A number of such bills include the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC) Act and the Press Council Act (PCA). The Buhari’s government has also recently banned the social media platform, Twitter, as it continues to call for support for regulation of online and mainstream media space in the country.
The purpose of modifying the NBC Act and the PCA Act, is not only to intimidate and stifle the press, but also to muffle the basis of our democracy – freedom of speech. Both amendments seek to empower the Minister of Information to issue licences to print and broadcast media, and penalise journalists and media organisations for offences already covered under the country’s penal and criminal codes.
For instance, Section 3 (e, f, and g) of the NPC amendment bill says the body shall “receive, process and consider applications for the establishment, ownership and operation of print and other related media houses; with the approval of the minister, grant print media and other related licences to any application considered worthy of such; monitor activities of the media and other related media houses to ensure compliance with the National Press Code for professional and ethical conduct, including the Nigeria Union of Journalists.”
The bill also provides the minister with the authority to sanction and revoke the licence of any print media that violates the “National Press Code”. Section 33 (3) of the bill also says that “any person who carries news established to be fake news  thereafter, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of N5 million or two years in prison or both.” 
And the print media that carried the ‘fake news’ shall be liable to a fine of N10 million and/or closure for one year! This clause deliberately ignores existing media laws that provide for retraction and apology when a media organisation errs in publishing an article. It is yet to be seen what is democratic about this proposed law.
In addition, the currently conceived bill aims to regulate internet broadcasting and all online media organisations through a series of broadcasting licences, including licences for live content or Over the Top Television (OTT). Attempting to crack down on online media criticism is patently reckless, and it flies in the face of liberal democracy.
We are totally confident that all the endorsed funds and the review of media laws are geared towards enabling security operatives to haunt journalists and to restrict freedom of information in the country. This is actually another strategy to limit criticism of the government. Why are the authorities not thinking about utilising the enormous funds earmarked for media repression to develop other sectors of the country consistently yearning for consideration? 
No opposition party in Nigeria has benefited more from press freedom than the All Progressives Congress (APC). As APC’s spokesperson at the time, the current Information Minister, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, had access to traditional and online media at all times, and his views were widely publicised. Therefore, it is paradoxical that these obnoxious bills are in the process of becoming laws.
Over the last six years, the NASS has adopted, revised or proposed no fewer than five pieces of legislation, all of which have the capacity to restrict the press. These include the Cybercrime Act, the Frivolous Petitions Bill of 2015, the Hate Speech Bill, and the Prevention of Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill of 2019. Each of them looks scary enough.
The NASS or any other related legislature must deal with various anti-media bills carefully to avoid overheating the already tense polity. In the past, even under the military regime, Nigerian leaders tried to block the press, but met severe resistance; and only successfully pitched the government against the people and the media and created social unrest.
Certainly, like traditional media platforms, there could be abuse, and this invariably requires some regulation. But given the inherent nature of social media, extreme care must be taken to prevent the child from being dumped with the bathwater. The largely unsuccessful experience of some developed countries that have sought to reduce social media excesses in some respects is very instructive.
In any event, there are enough existing laws in the country’s statute books on defamation, privacy, libel and slander to protect public and private individuals ordinarily. It is important to ensure that the passage of another law on similar matters is not excessive, eventually resulting in needless duplication of laws.
There is no question that the government has to regulate the media in line with extant laws, especially in this period when the country is beset with existential, economic, political and security problems. In fact, the time demands that all security agencies, including the intelligence community, are up and doing. 
However, we firmly insist that the massive allocations to the different intelligence services in the country should not be a cover-up to fight the media. Instead, they must be put to good use to achieve the presumed objective of combating subversive activities, crime and criminal elements. No society can stand up to a subjugated press.