Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech

Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech

By: Zagazola Makama

Once again, Amnesty International has taken a predictable but deeply troubling stance, this time, condemning the lawful detention of a social media influencer, Ghali Isma’il, who is facing charges over a false and provocative video announcing the death of Nigeria’s sitting President. In its hasty and one-sided statement, Amnesty labeled the Department of State Services’ (DSS) action as “a clear demonstration of abuse of power.” This knee-jerk condemnation reeks not only of bias but of a dangerous disregard for the responsibility that comes with free speech.

It’s important to remember that the Nigerian authorities are acting within the bounds of the law. Ghali Isma’il appeared before a competent magistrate and is being tried for spreading false information an issue of concern to public safety and stability. The viral video claiming the President’s death by poisoning, however unfounded and provocative, point to the need for responsible speech, especially in a period when misinformation can quickly escalate tensions or cause panic.

Let’s be clear: no one is above the law. Isma’il was not whisked away to a secret cell. He was arraigned before a competent magistrate court in Abuja and is being tried according to the laws of the land. The charges spreading false information with intent to cause public alarm and inciting disaffection against the government are not political fabrications.

They are legitimate concerns, especially when tied to a video falsely claiming that President Bola Tinubu had died after being poisoned, and presented with an air of certainty that could spark panic in a country already battling complex security and economic challenges.

If this is what Amnesty International classifies as “freedom of expression,” then the organization must clarify where it draws the line between speech and sabotage. Are we now to accept that individuals can publish death hoaxes about national leaders and peddle wild, fabricated conspiracy theories under the guise of digital activism? Would Amnesty extend this same compassion if the target were a leader in Europe or America?

Is it truly free speech when falsehoods threaten public order or incite unrest? Would Amnesty International hold the same stance if similar misinformation targeted leaders in other parts of the world? These are complex issues with no easy answers, but it is crucial that we weigh the right to expression against the potential harm caused by reckless or deliberately false content.

Let us also not forget that this is not Ghali Isma’il’s first brush with dangerous disinformation. He has repeatedly posted bizarre claims including that former U.S. President Donald Trump was compelling Nigeria to repatriate terrorists into the country and quoting the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tugger, who never mentioned such in his interview. Yusuf said they are ex- convict from Venezuela but Ismail, said they are “Terrorists” . When does free speech become reckless speech? When does falsehood become a threat to national peace and cohesion? This calls for a measured discussion on when speech crosses into dangerous territory especially when it influences public perception and stability.

Moreover, one must ask: where was Amnesty International when ISWAP terrorists released gruesome videos of mass executions? Where was Amnesty when bandits kidnapped and murdered citizens or when IPOB loyalists torched police stations and killed security personnel? The silence or muted response from Amnesty International in those cases raises questions about consistency and priorities. Their silence in the face of these atrocities is deafening. Yet, whenever the Nigerian state acts to preserve order and prevent chaos, Amnesty rushes in with a press release always siding with the provocateur.

Ultimately, the right to free speech must be exercised responsibly. Supporting lawful limits when speech could threaten national peace isn’t a contradiction to human rights but a recognition of their importance in a complex society.

Amnesty International faces an important question: will it stand as a defender of genuine human rights and democratic stability, or does it risk becoming a platform that inadvertently enables disinformation that jeopardizes it?

This double standard is becoming increasingly apparent to Nigerians. The right to free speech must be protected, yes but it must also be exercised with responsibility. Defending lies that threaten national unity under the cloak of human rights advocacy is not activism; it is sabotage.

Amnesty International must decide: is it here to protect Nigeria’s democracy or to shield those who exploit social media to endanger it?

Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad Region

Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech