In response to Twitter's censorship of a message from President Buhari last June1 , Nigeria retaliated by suspending Twitter in its territory. Almost all the reactions were the same: only the suspension of Twitter was condemned. Osai Ojigho, Director of Amnesty in Nigeria, condemned the suspension as an attack on Nigerians' freedom of information and expression2 . And Twitter issued a message3 reminding people that a free and open internet is a fundamental right.
Similarly, an AFP report focused on the fact that the suspension of Twitter constituted censorship4 , and issued a joint statement5 from Canada, the European Union, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States criticising the suspension and reiterating their support for freedom of expression and information.
No media and no country criticised the fact that the Nigerian President was initially censored by a US commercial firm. Only an IFREI article analysed the issue more comprehensively, and brought the cyber-colonial nature of Big Tech censorship to light.
Then in August Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani published an article on the BBC website6 , also decrying Twitter's policy. For the Nigerian journalist and essayist, the verdict is crystal clear: "Is it right that a private American firm has the power to edit, without permission, the official communication of a democratically elected president of an African country? It doesn't get any more neo-colonial than that."
Neo-colonial, this seems a harsh word. But it reflects a reality you need to grasp: a US commercial entity has granted itself the right to judge and censor African citizens, thereby superseding the justice system of their countries. How is it that the joint Western communiqué did not mention this fact? How can anyone claim to be defending freedom of expression while at the same time allowing commercial firms to deny it? How can Twitter claim to lecture on the importance of a free and open internet when it is censoring citizens around the world in place of their democratically legitimate judicial institutions?
Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani said that Twitter has the right to apply its rules, but that Buhari's message was an official communication from the head of state. This is the only point on which our analysis slightly differs : Twitter has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, and has basically no right to apply its rules to a President, nor to any ordinary citizen. No commercial firm can claim to supersede justice in determining what can or cannot be said. The fact that the intervention of justice requires resources remains a material problem that can simply be resolved, for example by a tax on Big Tech. This is the price of African digital sovereignty7 .