Nigeria’s government is using digital technologies to crack down on its citizens and dissenters. This massive trend toward accountability-free surveillance and social control poses grave dangers to civil liberties. After the 2020 #EndSARS Movement protests, officials attempted to suppress police brutality and provide more long-awaited transparency into local governments. To keep suppressing the population, today they use more sophisticated digital tools. This new digital highway deepens the global currents of growing digital authoritarianism. It is a toxic governance model that erodes democratic norms to enhance authoritarian state control and repression.
The Nigerian government’s motivations for embracing these technologies are complex, shaped by local disenfranchisement and pressing development needs. By seeking foreign expertise and systems, Nigeria aims to address issues such as security, electoral integrity, and modernization while simultaneously suppressing dissent. This article explores how Nigeria’s reliance on digital authoritarianism is shaping its governance landscape and its implications for the future.
The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism
Digital authoritarianism refers to state surveillance and repressive tactics, as well as governance strategies that use technology. These tactics are designed to kibosh accountability and limit people’s freedom to act. In Nigeria, this trend has emerged prominently since the 2020 protests, where citizens took to the streets to demand systemic change. As protests continued, the government’s response was not limited to suppressing protests but to push forward its digital surveillance state.
Nigerian authorities would love nothing more than to replicate China’s “Great Firewall.” This system is infamous for its massive censorship and surveillance over the Internet. The Nigerian government wants to do the same through nationwide sintel controls. Their aim is to control the information that is available to citizens. This project has underscored a promising trend. China, Russia, Israel, France and even the United States have all rushed to fill the shortfall, offering technologies, tactics and training that bolster authoritarian regimes across Africa.
This welcome embrace of digital tools for governance goes beyond the cloud of surveillance. The Nigerian federal government leverages these technologies for various counterproductive, and sometimes dangerous, purposes. Instead, they pursue regime survival, consolidation of political control, enhancement of regime security, and information control/manipulation during elections. The rise of digital authoritarianism isn’t limited to non-democratic regimes but is recently on the rise within democracies, such as in Nigeria.
Foreign Influence and Technological Acquisition
For example, Nigeria has made aggressive moves towards implementing more sophisticated technology systems. It’s looking for foreign suppliers that have the most advanced solutions to help it meet its development goals. The administration’s current attack on the rule mirrors the desperate turn the government has taken to avoid domestic issues like security threats and looming electoral pressures. This reliance on outside expertise is dangerous, interjecting foreign influence over our domestic policy and raising sovereignty concerns.
To further its commitment to delivering broadband access nationwide, the Nigerian government has poured resources into national broadband networks—national fiber optic systems and mobile telecommunications networks. These infrastructures enrich the government’s digital authoritarianism agenda by enabling state surveillance infrastructure and help deepen states’ control over how information is shared. Smart city governance systems have proven to be a useful tool for authorities, too. They want to do a better job of overseeing urban populations.
The ramifications of this tech reliance are profound. Nigeria is deeply divided by local conflicts and developmental challenges. If we abandon them, rolling back to luxe digital tools and repressive measures, we invite the next wave of repressive backlash and grassroots unrest. By valuing control more than citizen participation, the federal government is creating divisions between the government and the governed.
Case Studies of Control: The Twitter Ban
An early and egregious example of Nigeria’s digital authoritarianism was the country’s June 2021 Twitter ban. The government hastily enforced the ban shortly after Twitter deleted a post by President Muhammadu Buhari. His post broke the platform’s own policy against abusive conduct. The charge sparked an outcry from citizens and human rights organizations alike. For them, they view it as a targeted direct attack on freedom of expression.
Following seven months of imposed quiet on the platform, the Nigerian government finally rescinded the ban in January 2022. This decision came after months of negotiations with Twitter to make sure that they were compliant with Singapore’s local laws and regulations. The films served to depict just how far the federal government was willing to go to stomp out dissent. It further exposed its relentless attempts at digital narrative control.
These actions are symptomatic of a larger pattern entrenched in Nigeria’s governance system, using technology as a double-edged sword. While it can potentially enhance service delivery and development outcomes, it can equally be weaponized against citizens seeking accountability and transparency.
Implications for Democracy and Governance
As digital authoritarianism spreads across the globe, it presents daunting new challenges to democracy in Nigeria. As the federal government scales up its use of surveillance technologies… This increase could cause citizens to self-censor and discourage them from speaking out and engaging in community conversations. This atmosphere makes it very difficult for civic engagement to flourish and accountability measures necessary to an effective democracy to thrive.
Furthermore, the way these digital tools are exploited for electoral manipulation puts into stark relief the unique threat they pose to the integrity of democratic processes. Narrowing down, as Nigeria looks toward future elections, the risk that this information might be manipulated to suit certain narratives could erode public confidence in electoral results. This troubling development reflects the need for constant pressure from civil society organizations and international watchdogs.
The increasing trend of digital authoritarianism is not unique to Nigeria. You get a sense of it when you look at what’s going on in other African countries—Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana. Yet governments from Colorado to Paris to Mexico City are taking the same approach to regain control. In turn, citizens will encounter a far more complicated web of rights and freedoms.