There’s a growing dispute between the Department of State Security (DSS), activist and politician Omoyele Sowore, and social media platform X (formerly Twitter). In a letter dated Saturday, September 6, the DSS demanded that X take down an August 25 tweet from Omoyele Sowore, saying it disparaged President Bola Tinubu, was misleading, and capable of threatening national security.

Sowore, in his usual fit, slammed President Tinubu for declaring during his stop in Brazil last month that corruption was no longer a problem in Nigeria due to his reforms. “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!,” the 2019 and 2023 African Action Congress presidential candidate tweeted. Reacting via the letter, which was signed by a certain B. Bamigboye on behalf of the Director-General of State Services, the DSS maintained that 24 hours was sufficient time for X to comply or be found culpable in the alleged offence of Sowore, an act that would attract “far-reaching, sweeping and across-the-board measures” against the social media body’s operations in Nigeria.

With similar petitions from the DSS to Meta regarding Sowore’s post on Facebook, the activist’s post is still standing, while he himself has characteristically refused to delete the tweet despite reported private efforts from Bayo Onanuga, the presidential spokesperson, to inform the activist of how his attack was a misfire since it misinterpreted the president’s declaration. Sowore also recounted X’s seemingly non-partisan personal message to him, in their bid to maintain their usual transparency in such matters.

The outcome remains uncertain, but should the DSS persist in its pursuit of Sowore and the social media platforms that have thus far resisted its demands, the reasoning behind its initial justification may provide the clearest indication of how the matter will eventually be resolved.

For one, the content of Sowore’s tweet has all the markers of an insult to the president and the office. However, Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act (PDF) does not expressly criminalise such conduct. Additionally, the allegation of incitement to violence and terrorism on which the DSS has premised its request appears unfounded, as Sowore’s lawyers have dutifully argued in their counter-letter to the social media companies. More than their letter to the platforms conveyed, it can be argued that the DSS’s issue with Sowore’s post is more about the government’s attempt to further suppress a critic who has been notoriously vocal in his condemnation of their activities. However, far-reaching consequences have happened for less between national governments and social media platforms, including the infamous Nigeria and Twitter saga in 2021.

Not many people would hurriedly forget when Twitter went dark in Nigeria for seven months in 2021 after the then Jack Dorsey-owned platform deployed extreme measures against then-President Muhammadu Buhari for his violent threat against regional secessionists. Deemed to have violated its community rules, Twitter did what it normally does: delete the tweet and suspend the account for 12 hours. In what happened to be the first time a president’s tweet was deleted, the Nigerian government resolved to ban the platform’s operations in the country, due to what it described as“persistent use of the platform for activities that are capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence.” The ban lasted for months before a compromise was reached on both ends.

While not entirely similar, this recent development with Sowore and the DSS brings to the fore Africa’s politically charged, prevalent social media restrictions. When it comes down to it, countries can always strong-arm social media platforms to further their political interests under the guise of maintaining public order. As observed in Hong Kong following the enactment of its National Security Law in 2020, when governments persist in clamping down on these networks, netizens are likely to avoid or outright ignore politically sensitive discussions and erase previously shared dissenting opinions, all to shield themselves from possible legal crossfire. Consequently, the diverse viewpoints and the quality of democratic discourse that sustain a healthy political society are steadily eroded. Additionally, ensuing criticisms from human rights organisations, foreign governments, and other relevant bodies are bound to have significant international implications for the country’s democratic reputation. 

In recent times, X, guided by  Elon Musk’s incendiary influence, has grown to be a hotbed for free-speech absolutism, political discussions, agendas, and other such activities. The DSS won’t have a smooth ride in forcing the platform’s hand in a political disagreement. A case in point is the politically charged battle in 2024 between Brazil and Musk after X refused to ban several accounts accused of spreading political misinformation. Spiralling into a legal standoff, the Brazilian authorities invoked laws requiring foreign companies to have legal representation. With Musk’s refusal to comply, the stage was set for a ban on X in the country, which lasted six weeks before the billionaire resolved to appoint a local representative and pay a fine totalling 28 million reais ($5.1m; £3.8m), according to the BBC.

In any case, Kurt Wagner, social media expert and author of Battle for the Bird, has said it all: “Social media companies have worked within the law of the countries where they operate. They’ve been willing to say, ‘if this is the law of the land here, we may disagree with it, we may fight it, but we’re ultimately going to do what we can to keep the service up and running.’” This has been the case and will continue to be, even if it means compromising a demographic’s fundamental right to free expression, access to information, and what have you.