Exploring the intersection of Freedom of Expression and Public Order: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Standards For Differentiating Between Peaceful Protest, Freedom of Expression, and Unlawful Assembly in Nigeria By BELLO ADEDOTUN ADEBAYO

It is essential for preserving individual liberties, guaranteeing public security, and building a strong democracy. Recognising this distinction makes it possible to prevent nonviolent protests from degenerating into violent or destructive assemblies and guarantees that people can exercise their rights to free speech and assembly without fear of unjust repercussions. We can encourage inclusive discourse, constructive dialogue, and social understanding by walking this tightrope, which will ultimately support the rule of law and encourage civic engagement. Maintaining this equilibrium is crucial for sound democratic procedures, as it enables citizens to hold elected officials responsible and fosters a secure and courteous atmosphere that affords varied perspectives a chance to be acknowledged.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 21) both uphold the right to peaceful assembly and protest.

People have the freedom to assemble, protest, and voice their opinions, beliefs, and complaints without worrying about retaliation or retaliation.

Thus, A protest is an action or declaration of disapproval that can be made publicly or privately. Protest can take many different forms, such as direct action, incendiarism, written letters to elected officials, signing online petitions, rally attendance, and product boycotts.

Freedom of Expression is a person’s right to express their opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. The term “expression” constitutes speech that includes far more than just words, but also what a person wears, reads, performs, protests and more. In Nigeria, freedom of speech is strongly protected by constitution of federal republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, as well as many state and federal laws. Section 39(1) CFRN 1999 as amended, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”.

While, Unlawful assembly is “when three or more persons, with intent to carry out some common purpose, assemble

in such a manner or, being assembled, conduct themselves in such a manner, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear on reasonable grounds that the persons so

assembled will tumultuously disturb the peace, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons tumultuously to disturb the peace, they are an unlawful assembly.” (see Section 69, Criminal Code). An assembly is thus illegal when at least three people gather or behave in such a way that it may reasonably be concerned that they will disrupt the peace or incite others to do so.

The convergence of protest and freedom of expression.

A person’s ability to voice disapproval, mobilise others, and push for change makes protest and free speech inextricably linked. It gives demonstrators the ability to face injustice, engage in constructive dialogue with those in positions of authority, and demand accountability. Indivi duals and organisations can engage in the democratic process and exercise their right to influence public opinion and policy through the use of free speech. In addition to being vital for advancing democratic values and igniting social change, the relationship between protest and free speech has played a key role in shaping important social movements throughout history, including the feminist and Civil Rights movements.

For instance,

The Abeokuta Women’s Revolt (1946): In the late 1940s, the Nigerian colonial government imposed unfair taxes, and the Abeokuta Women’s Union (AWU) spearheaded a resistance movement against it.

Consequently, the women’s flat tax was temporarily eliminated and the Alake modification to the SNA system was abandoned.

Ali Must Go (1978): A nationwide university protest over a 50-kobo increase in student fees sparked the protests.

June 12 Protests (1993): The protests sparked as an aftermath of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential elections by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida.

Occupy Nigeria (2012): Nigerians demonstrated against the Goodluck Jonathan administration’s elimination of fuel subsidies and subsequent price increases.

Repercussions included the Federal Government’s spending being reviewed and the subsidy being reinstated.

Finding a balance between public safety concerns and protest rights is a challenging task because of divergent opinions, erratic conditions, and conflicting agendas. Authorities must navigate resource limitations, intense emotions, and tension in order to safeguard vulnerable populations and minimise disruption. Additionally, they must adapt to new protest tactics and technological advancements. These matters need careful thought in order to protect both public safety and protestors’ rights to free speech and assembly. Effective strategies require cooperation from stakeholders, both proactive and reactive tactics, and a deep understanding of the complex issues at hand. By acknowledging these challenges, authorities can work to find a middle ground where protest rights are maintained and public safety concerns are taken into consideration.

When Protest Becomes Unlawful Assembly

National Security: Governments have the right to impose restrictions on protests if they pose a genuine threat to public order, national security, or the safety of participants or others.

In case the case of Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2007) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1066) 457 – The Supreme Court held that the right to peaceful assembly can be restricted if it poses a threat to national security, public order, or public safety.

Public Order: In this sense, many have perceived the law as violating Nigerians’ freedom to associate and assemble in their own way, as guaranteed by section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. Although section 40 is subject to section 45 (1), which allows any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, and so on, the Court of Appeal upheld the legality of the Public Order Act in Lewis Chukwuma & 2 ors v. Commissioner of Police (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 278.

Preservation of Rights and Freedoms: Protests that are intended to stir up violence, hatred, or prejudice against particular people or groups may be prohibited. A riot was also deemed to have occurred when several people got together to strip and beat someone in a public setting. See Adebiyi v. Inspector General of Police (1956) W.N.L.R. 49.

Situations of Emergency: Governments may restrict gatherings in order to protect public safety during natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other emergencies. During a state of emergency or public crisis, the right to peaceful assembly may be restricted, as the Supreme Court ruled in the well-known case of Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR 228.

#EndBadGovernment protest in Nigeria; Egotistic Leaders, Fleeceable Followers

It is no longer news that a countrywide protest, dubbed #EndBadGovernance, will take place in response to many policies implemented by the current administration. Even though some of the protesters’ demands are unrealistic, many of this administration’s cruel policies have prompted people to call for government action, and some of their programs—such as the most recent New Minimum Wage, Students Loan, CrediCorp, Local Government Autonomy, Nano Grant, and Waiving Import Duties on Medical Equipment—are not working as the government has promised. Even with this, a lot of Nigerians are having difficulty; many families can no longer afford basic necessities, and it is unlikely that one family will be able to subsist on three square meals. In spite of all of this, some state governments are attempting to dissuade some of the leading activists from taking part in the protest by using various strategies; some have even threatened the leaders of religion and political parties. The president has met with monarchs and religious leaders from various parts of the country in an effort to persuade their people not to protest.

Nevertheless, some people will always minimise the plight of others for political reasons, despite all of the difficulties that people face. Even though basic amenities have evolved into luxurious ones, you claim that “nothing good comes out of that protest.” Some privileged people mistakenly view every government policy as support, which is completely untrue. As far as I can recall, these folks supported the government’s unconventional ideas during the previous administration. Now that we are in a different one, though, I will be happy to inform them that hunger knows no party preference.

Role of Authorities and Law Enforcement

A law hitherto regulating assemblies, meetings and processions in Nigeria was the Public Order Decree No. 5 of 1979 which repealed all public order laws in the States of the Federation and replaced them with a Federal Act for the purpose of maintaining public order among others. On the return to civil rule in 1999, the law was then codified as an Act of the National Assembly and designated as Public Order Act cap 382 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

Under the law the Governor of each State is charged with the conduct of all

assemblies, meetings and processions on public roads and places in the State (See section 1(1)). Anyone desirous of convening or collecting any assembly or

meeting or of forming any procession in such places must first seek and obtain a licence from the Governor. A licence may be issued upon conditions and a breach of this may entitle a superior officer of the police to order the assembly to disperse.

Policing protests requires law enforcement to accomplish two primary goals that are sometimes in tension with one another: protecting the constitutional right of free of expression, and assembly and preserving public safety. Law enforcement agencies are expected to apply proportional and impartial strategies and tactics to accomplish both imperatives. The law enforcement response to protests is primarily a local function in Nigeria, but the federal government plays two key roles in shaping that response, direct and indirect. The principal direct role involves federal law enforcement agencies responding to protests on federal property, in and around federal buildings, and when called on to provide mutual aid or other forms of assistance in communities. The principal indirect role involves training state and local police on how to handle protests and other crowd events.

Conversely, it appears from recent law, psychology, and criminology research that police want to work together with protestors and other similar groups. In light of this, the following four crowd management principles are identified:

Education: Law enforcement officials should endeavour to comprehend the nature of protests, specifically their internal social dynamics, objectives, and values.

Encouragement: Peaceful assembly and speech are important ways that police can reduce violence while upholding the rights of protestors.

Communication: By communicating purposefully and clearly, police are able to ascertain the objectives of demonstrators, avert confrontations, and detect threats to public safety immediately.

Differentiation: Rather than repressing protestors in all cases, police should concentrate their enforcement efforts on those individuals within crowds who actively damage public safety.

And last, Dear Nigerians: To have a strong democracy, one must comprehend the fine lines dividing protest, free speech, and unlawful assembly. Freedom of expression and protest are vital elements that enable people to voice their disapproval and push for reform. Unfortunately, these rights are not unqualified, and they may be curtailed in cases where they infringe upon the rights of third parties or the public at large.

According to the ruling in IGP v. EYO [1962] 1 All N.L.R. 515, a protest is deemed unlawful when it defies regulations or the law in some way, such as by blocking traffic or resorting to violence. The right to peaceful dissent must be protected while maintaining public order, and this requires distinguishing between lawful assembly and non-violent protest. Governments and law enforcement must strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the public, responding proportionately, in order to maintain order without restricting freedom of speech.

Ultimately, in order to ensure that their message is heard without jeopardising public safety, people should demonstrate in a civil and nonviolent manner while abiding by the law and the rules. In order to protect individual rights, promote a culture of constructive dissent, and maintain a stable and just society, we must recognise and respect this fine line.

Bello Adedotun Adebayo