Background:

In January 2019, National Information Technology Development Agency (“NITDA”), – an agency of the Federal government of Nigeria – issued a document titled “Framework and Guidelines for the use of social media platforms in public institutions” (the “social media framework”) pursuant to its powers under the provisions of its enabling law, National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007 (the “NITDA Act”).

Provision of section 6 of the NITDA Act is instructive, in that it provides for NITDA’s function to, inter alia, develop guidelines for electronic governance, monitor use of electronic data interchange and other forms of electronic communication transactions as an alternative to paper-based methods in government, commerce, education, the private and public sectors, labour, and other fields, where the use of electronic communication may improve exchange of data or information. The social media framework empowers Governments and its agencies to use social media handles on any social media platform to engage and render services to the people.

Even though the social media framework allows each public institution to define its social media objectives, any such objectives must include:

i) dissemination of information;
ii) public engagement for meaningful public participation in formulation of public policy;
iii) create awareness and sensitize the public on government policies and programmes; and

iv) obtain feedback from citizens.
The social media framework requires social media handles of Governments at all levels, i.e. States and Local Governments as well as any of its ministries, departments, agencies and commissions (“public institutions”) to be “manned by properly trained, professionals in public relations and communications with requisite experience in social media management. – We note that the definitions of public institutions under the social media framework should in certain circumstances be read together with the definition of public institutions under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 (the “FOI Act”), given that FOI Act as well requires public institutions to publish and circulate information on social media platforms.

It must however be noted that the wide definition of public institutions under the FOI Act include “legislative or judicial agencies, ministries, and extra-ministerial departments of government, together with corporations established by law and all companies which government has a controlling interest, and private companies utilizing public funds, providing public services or performing public functions” as well as advisory body of the government, boards, bureau, committees, or commissions of the State or sub-committees.

Whenever the definitions of public institutions under the FOI Act and the social media framework are read together, public institutions will include boards, directorates, managing directors or chairman of boards or commissions, special advisers or personal assistants amongst others. We will adopt this broad definition wherever we further refer to public institutions in this work.

Notably, the statement attributed to Yunusa Abdullahi, special adviser, media and communications to Zainab Ahmed, Nigeria’s Minister of Finance, as published by The Cable (https://www.thecable.ng/we-regret-our-action-finance-ministry-deletes-tweet-asking-elon-musk-for-ventilators) of 02:04:2020 that the “unauthorized” Twitter post (tweet) from the Federal Ministry of Finance wherein it asked Ellon Musk for ventilators is regrettable, is indeed a regrettable illegal action in view of the Ministry’s obligations under the social media framework which requires its tweets (as well as that of any other public institutions) to be ethical, professional, correct and consistent as well as duly authorized or approved.

Each public institution’s social media policy must include processes on how contents are created, types of contents and the approval process of the content to be published, easily accessible and archived, where applicable. The Federal Ministry of Finance as well breached its obligations under social media framework when it deleted the allegedly unauthorized tweet wherein it had previously begged Elon Musk for ventilators.

Principles and Key Objectives of Social Media Framework:

Principles of the social media framework are consistent with the FOI principles. The social media framework’s principles pertain to public institutions’ communication through its social media handles, a practice that should be widely observed across Governments. Its principles include:

i) transparency in order to promote openness in governance;
ii) accountability and responsibility for every action on any social media platform
iii) seamless and efficient ways of doing business;

iv) to promote rule of law, civic engagement and good governance.
From their antecedent, it seems some Governments (especially State and Local Governments including their respective agencies) consider their presence on any social media platform as doing favour to their subjects or followers on such platforms. The social media framework mandates public institutions to choose social media platforms tailored to specific audiences in order to deliver its objectives to its peoples.

Contrary to their obligation, we did not (at the time of writing this article) find any social media policy of any public institutions on its website – the FOI as well requires this to be hoisted on a public institution’s website. The Federal Government of Nigeria and some federal ministries, departments and, parastatals are available on Twitter with varying responsiveness to twitter community. State and Local Governments are in our view sparingly available on social media platforms with few exceptions. Other than Lagos State, Oyo State and some other States, there are very few States and Local Governments’ accounts on twitter.

Not either the Supreme Court of Nigeria or National Judicial Council or Federal Judicial Service Commission or National Judicial Institute is available on Twitter, while the twitter account of University of Nigeria, National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Nigeria’s Court of Appeal, Abia State Government are apparently not manned by professionals.

Key objectives of the social media framework include dissemination of information, public engagement in public policy formulation, awareness campaign and public sensitization on government policies and programmes and, for feedback. – We look for the days when application for disclosures of information to public institutions initiated on social media platforms can be successfully concluded on any social media platform.

In our view, the culture of deliberating on Governments’ policies before or after it is made is not an emerging skill among Nigerians, perhaps because of the frequent accusations that Governments do not listen or take public views into consideration. On Twitter, the arms of Governments neither engage that community on policy formulations nor do they gauge policy acceptance from comments it receives – Governments’ unpopularity.

It is an evolving culture for public institutions to use social media platform, apparently some public institutions are unaware of their obligations under the social media framework. The special adviser on new media to Nigeria’s President, Bashir Ahmed on 16:04:2020 responded to a tweet in an uncivil way when he tweeted “your ignorance shouldn’t be an excuse for you to curse your country, the necessary information you are seeking on the #COVID19Nigeria is available on the…” His tweet violated the social media framework’s requirements of professionalism, ethical and civil conducts. Governments and its officials have obligations to educate – serve – citizens without name calling or uncivilities.

Similarly, Abike Dabiri who uses her twitter handle in her capacity as the Chairman of NDICOM (Nigeria in Diaspora Commission) also breached her obligations under the social media framework when on 27:03:2020 she retweeted an obscene caricature image of a twitter account holder and liked the same tweet – the tweet was a clear vulgarity and obscenities – which clearly violates the social media framework.

We acknowledge that Abike Dabiri and other public officials work hard to serve Nigerians online, but they have to comply strictly with the primary regulation as well as other legislations while we look forward to the days Nigerians on social media handles will more robustly engaged its Governments and her officials.

These are other clear examples of non-compliance to the social media framework which NITDA has the mandate to pro-actively enforce. Public institutions have to fully comply with the social media handles’ objectives of civic engagement, policy or programmes’ contributions or review, or as a feedback loop.

Nigeria’s President, Mohammed Buhari, rarely responds to mentions on twitter or to any enquiries. The Nigerian Army and, Nigerian Police Force are commendably pro-active on Twitter and they give feedbacks to complaints or requests.

Account and Content Governance:

The social media framework requires public institutions to use all available cyber security to protect their social media handles on any platform against hacking or unauthorized use. It rightly prescribes control measures in the manner accounts are created, information is disseminated and the process of handling responses.

In addition to the requirement that those who handle social media platforms for public institutions should be properly trained with competence in public relations and communication as well as previous experience, it does recommend the same account name across social media platforms for public institutions.

Public institutions are required to use official email to create social media account and to maintain login IDs and password registers. It mandates public institutions to determine – in a policy form – who handles its social media accounts, how frequently it publishes on social media handles as well as how to respond to comments. A public institution’s social media policy should include handover process for social media accounts.

Each contents developed by any public institution should enjoy an approval process, this obligation forecloses the Ministry of Finance’s response to Ellon Musk’s tweet. It cannot validly claime that it was unauthorized without breaching its obligations under the social media framework. Besides Bashir Ahmed also tweeted the same request in his capacity as special assistant to the President on new Media, was that unauthorized as well.

Public institutions are not allowed to harass, bully or otherwise engage in illegal or inappropriate activity on any social media platform.

The social media framework permits public institutions to outsource social media account handling job to core professionals. We are not aware as to what extent public institutions comply to this requirement but it could be deduced that the President and other public officials do not personally handle their social media accounts. – It will be interesting to enquire as to the costs of such outsourced contracts.

Public institutions are required to conduct periodic evaluation of Social Media project. NITDA has the authority to issue guidance notices, conduct service-wide usage reviews and evaluation, as well as institutional capacity building programmes to enhance the use and management of social media for government communication – social media activities of public institutions do not show that NITDA carry out these mandates.

The social media framework expressly requires government officials using social media platforms not to use personal social media accounts for official engagement or publish personal opinions on official social media accounts or ensure posts or comments are factual, ethical, respectful, apolitical, impartial and professional or require permission from the authority before posting anything on social media or represent a public institution professionally and be sure that what is published is consistent with relevant policies, standards, executive orders and circulars related to the mandates of the organization or not engage in harassment, bullying, illegal or otherwise inappropriate activity while using official social media account.

Rita Onochie’s allegedly defamatory social media posts against Atiku Abubakar (Nigeria’s PDP’s presidential candidate in 2019 election), which is lis pendis (given that there is a pending law suit), if unsupportable by the defence of truth will also be criminal conduct under the social media framework as presently regulated, which she may be liable for prosecution at any time.

Conclusion:

The Federal, States and Local Governments including their agencies, ministries, departments and commissions should leverage on social media platforms to become more open and transparent. They should engage their teeming population online and work towards earning and retaining the confidence of Nigerians. The role of reviving patriotism among Nigerians is suited to the National Orientation Agency (NOA) whose presence on Twitter appears limited to retweets of other Government agencies’ tweets.

Perhaps the NOA is under budgeted. It should live to its full responsibility and corporate objectives as an instrument of promoting national unity and engendering patriotism. The Ministry of Communication and Digital Technology can do more together with the Minister for Communication perhaps by collaborating with the NITDA to organize trainings for those handling social media presence of public institutions.

Audit firms, Media houses whether electronic or print as well as other firms interested in data management may as well conduct independent service-wide reviews and evaluation of public institutions’ compliance to the social media framework. This will provide us with raw facts of extent of public institution’s compliance to its obligations.

In the meantime, NITDA should proactively enforce its regulations especially the social media framework.

Osita Enwe who is a managing associate at SRJ Legal Practitioners teaches business law at IIT Lagos. You can reach him on Twitter @ositaEnwe