“Good morning. I hope voting is going well at your polling station? To access Twitter, WhatsApp and Facebook use Tunnelbear VPN.” – Uganda presidential candidate, Amama Mbabazi. The above was a tweet sent by Uganda’s presidential candidate, John Patrick Amama Mbabazi, following the government’s decision to block several social media platforms on the day Ugandans electedtheir head of state. As you may have gathered from the tweet, Mr Mbabazi was checking on the progress of the voting exercise, but also, seemingly advising his compatriots on how to bypass the imposed blockade. In defence of the imposed ban, president Museveni who was also contesting for the highest office in land is said to have commented that “some people misuse those pathways. You know how they misuse them – telling lies…if you want a right, then use it properly.” Independent observers such as former Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, warned that “it is ill advised if anyone has blocked social media.” Obasanjo was acting as head of the Commonwealth observation mission during the Uganda elections. But, seeing that social media platforms were only a few years ago hailed by many commentators as ‘rescuers of our right to freedom of speech’, as evidenced during recent uprisings in countries like Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, can it be justified to shut them down even temporarily? Of course, the answer to this question divides opinion, however, my take is that in some situations, control of social media platforms is warranted provided that no laws are broken, and here is why: By now, we are all familiar with the use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and whatnot. To express your views via these platforms, all you need is a computer, tablet or mobile phone, and an internet connection – and away you go. Once registered, you are ‘free’ (of course, within the confines of what the platform provider deems to be appropriate) to express your views to as many people within your network. And of course, there is the option for those in your network to share your thoughts with others in their networks. Before you know it, an opinion about something, significant or not, based on fact or fiction, can become gospel in a matter of minutes. Of course, there can be no harm caused if the ‘status’ or ‘tweet’ in question is simply asking for advise on how to prepare a tandoori chicken dish! But, what if the individual or individuals behind a tweet or Facebook status is/are calling for disorder, should the government stand by and simply watch while the rest of the country descends into anarchy? No, is my answer. State authorities have a duty to protect every single one of us, even if that means curtailing one’s rights to safeguard another’s. John Stuart Mill stated it appropriately when he said that “the liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” And I for oneconcur with this statement. In all honesty, in times where there are obvious intentions to violate order; the state is within its parameters to maintain order using the means least likely to affect the livelihoods of those involved and those that aren’t involved. I will give you an example of what happened in London in 2011. The summer riots of 2011 that took place in London began after a young man, Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police. Within a matter of days, riots began popping up and down London, especially in and around Tottenham, a London suburb. What ensued was total mayhem; buildings were torched, businesses were looted, homes were vandalised, roads were shut down – London had become a warzone, literally. What was the financial cost for all this? A parliament home affairs committee was handed a bill of £133 million payable not by the rioters, but by the taxpayer. After the inquest investigators cited the role social media platforms had in fuelling the riots. In the findings, the inquest revealed that Twitter and Blackberry Messaging appeared to have been widely used to organise and even incite groups of rioters firstly in London and then further afield to other cities in the UK. At the time, control of social media platforms was a grey area and the UK government had no clear plans in place on how to act. By extension, as the riots extended countrywide, over 3,000 people were arrested, hundreds of buildings were gutted by fire, several businesses closed permanently, and the average Londoner’s life was altered in one way or another as a result. Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament that: “when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.” Now, I don’t have reason to believe that what happened in London was going to happen in Kampala during the elections. However, going by what has happened there previously during elections, you would be hard pressed to ignore the possibility of opportunists taking advantage of the election fever to launch their agendas using Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp to galvanise support. And who is to say that if such events were to follow, building wouldn’t be destroyed, businesses wouldn’t be looted, and greedy people wouldn’t help themselves to other people’s properties? And if it is a question of what if, surely the government is mandated to be all the wiser in such circumstances! In any case, it is my belief that state intervention is warranted every time peace and order are threatened or likely to be threatened. The only difference is that,in my opinion, the decision to shut down social media platforms should only be made by the one and only true adjudicator, the independent courts of law. Governments must prove that peace and order are at risk. junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk
