EMBATTLED lately with security challenges of communal insurgencies, pervasive bomb blasts, including a dastardly attack on the Headquarters of the Nigeria Police Force and the United Nations Building in Abuja, the Federal Government is considering new options.The recent announcement that it planned to present a Bill to the National Assembly for legislation to allow it to monitor phone calls is one of such options. The deadly security challenges witnessed in recent times indicated that there was a huge lack of capacity by the country's security agencies in intelligence gathering. If enacted into law, the Lawful Interception of Electronic Communication would be a legislative licence for government to tap into phones and tender it in evidence for the prosecution of criminal offences relating to security breach. There are various sides to the argument. Evoking the Big-Brother-Is-Watching- You syndrome of autocracy and dictatorship as lampooned in George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty Four"', where in a communist community, the State monitors every move of the central character, critics say it is a flagrant infringement on citizens' fundamental human rights. From this standpoint, it is being condemned. Already, opposition parties have cried foul over what they perceive to be invasion of privacy and civil liberties. Yet, it is not unusual, wherever there are security challenges, especially in war and emergency situations, for the State to take interest in information data anywhere it could be procured, including invading individual's privacy, and legislating along those lines. But as provided in Section 45 (2) '...no such measures shall be taken in pursuance of any such Act during any period of emergency save to the extent that those measures are reasonably justifiable for the purpose of dealing with the situation that exists during the period of emergency '' Given such provisions as the foregoing and the recent security challenges in the country, would it be right to surmise that the nation is at such low ebb of security status at this time as to necessitate the resort to such laws' Fears are that given Nigeria's peculiar circumstances, such laws, notwithstanding that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, can be susceptible to abuse either to silence the opposition or to be unwholesomely employed to harass and intimidate hapless citizens by power-drunk political elite. To that extent, institutional checks to monitor the monitors must also be put in place. For all its advantages, electronic surveillance must not be a blanket licence to invade privacy. Ordinarily, there are supposed to be institutions or apparatuses of State Security Service to routinely check, monitor data, not just with regards to telephone conversations but with regards to regularly and forensically analysing bio-data like fingerprints, colour of eyes and having them adequately and accurately stored in retrieval banks. The use of such data by those saddled with their custody must, however, be for the purpose of the common good. It must not be an instrument of harassment and vindictiveness. It must be used strictly for what it was actually meant, namely: to checkmate the purveyors of terror. Such anti-terrorism methods are widely used in many countries. Ten years after the 9/11 tragedy in the United States of America, a spectrum of stringent measures meant to ensure tight security and forestall activities of terrorists have been in operation. It is no longer unusual to read about dawn raids based upon intercepted telephone conversations to various address to arrest suspects of terrorist plots. Monitoring telephone conversations and data is now such an easy vocation in this age of information and communication technology. The proposed Bill should, however, be widely debated. If passed into law, the government however, needs to ensure that information surreptitiously gathered does not fall into wrong hands. Putting security-related information at the disposal of government is also the collective responsibility of all. Government only needs to ensure that sources are credible and protected. It can hardly be over-emphasised that information so garnered must be used strictly for the purpose of safeguarding lives and property within the confines of the law.
Click here to read full news..
