The bill, which sought to criminalise subversive activities and impose severe penalties on offenders, sparked significant debate and criticism after it was introduced on July 23, 2024.
The proposed legislation was to establish a legal framework for detecting, preventing, and prosecuting subversive acts by various groups, including militias, cults, and proscribed organisations. It outlined penalties ranging from two to 25 years imprisonment and fines between N2 million and N15 million for those found guilty of offences such as promoting separatist agitations, disrupting legal processes, and disrespecting national symbols.
However, the bill quickly became a lightning rod for controversy. Critics argued that its provisions were overly broad and draconian, potentially criminalising legitimate dissent and peaceful protest.
Speaker Abbas, who sponsored the bill, initially defended it as a necessary measure to safeguard Nigeria’s unity and security.
However, following extensive consultations with stakeholders, including civil society organisations, legal experts, and representatives of various interest groups, he decided to withdraw the bill.
In a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Musa Abdullahi Krishi, the Speaker emphasised that his decision was motivated by a desire to protect the interests of the Nigerian people and maintain national unity.
“Speaker Abbas Tajudeen, a champion of the people’s interests, has always prioritised listening to the citizens and fostering unity. His decision reflects his commitment to ensuring that the House remains truly the People’s House,” the statement reads.
According to the Speaker, “The withdrawal of the bill shows the power of public opinion in shaping legislative decisions in Nigeria’s democracy. It also highlights the delicate balance lawmakers must strike between addressing national security concerns and upholding citizens’ rights and freedoms”.
The bill’s provisions included harsh penalties for a wide range of actions deemed subversive.
For example, Clause 2 of the bill stipulated a N5 million fine or 10 years imprisonment for engaging in activities that could lead to conflict or violence threatening Nigeria’s corporate existence.
Clause 7 prescribed a N10 million fine or 25 years imprisonment for making statements that could incite separatist agitation or intergroup conflict.
The bill also proposed penalties for actions such as refusing to recite the national anthem (Clause 😎, associating with foreign-based criminal organisations (Clause 9), and pledging allegiance to another country (Clause 19).
Critics argued that these provisions were too broad and could be used to stifle dissent. For instance, the clause prohibiting “making dangerous statements” (Clause 7) was seen as potentially criminalising free speech.
Similarly, the clause against “disregarding the sovereignty of Nigeria” (Clause 6) could be interpreted to punish individuals for peaceful advocacy of regional autonomy or restructuring.
The bill’s withdrawal by the speaker has been welcomed by many Nigerians, who view it as a victory for democracy and the rule of law.
However, it also raises questions about the future of legislative efforts to address national security challenges.
As Nigeria continues to grapple with issues such as insurgency, banditry, and ethnic tensions, lawmakers will need to find ways to strengthen security without infringing on civil liberties.
In the wake of the bill’s withdrawal, there are calls for a more inclusive approach to lawmaking that takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders.
Legal experts and civil society groups are urging the National Assembly to engage in broader consultations before introducing any new legislation on national security.
They argue that such an approach would help ensure that laws are not only effective but also fair and just.
As the dust settles on the Counter Subversion Bill, it remains to be seen whether the House of Representatives will revisit the issue in the future, and if so, how it will navigate the complex terrain of national security and human rights.
For now, Speaker Abbas’ decision to withdraw the bill serves as a reminder of the importance of listening to the voice of the people in a democratic society.