Connect with us

Opinion

Facebook vs ARCON: Presidential Aide O’tega Ogra Got It Wrong And Should Not Drag Presidency Into Murky Waters

Published

on

Facebook

By Ewa Izuchukwu

 

Advertisement

It was barely weeks after my honest review that raised questions about Justice Bogoro’s judgment setting aside ARCON’s ₦60 billion notice against Facebook Nigeria, when I got a rejoinder from a surprising and an unexpected source.

Also read: Facebook Nigeria vs ARCON’s judgment: Not about fine but consumer protection at risk of vulnerability

It’s not from Facebook Nigeria, not from Meta’s regional or global policy office, but from our own O’tega Ogra, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Digital Communications, Engagement and New Media Strategy. His piece, “The Facebook Nigeria Judgment Is Not a Defeat for Consumers. It Is a Victory for the Rule of Law,” summarily argues that the ruling strengthens institutional discipline rather than weaken consumer protection.

Ordinarily, public debate is healthy. Counter-arguments strengthen democratic discourse. But before engaging the substance of Ogra’s arguments, there is an important question that deserve serious considerations, answers: why has a presidential aide become the most visible public defender of a judgment obtained by Meta when the company itself has chosen silence?

Advertisement

Ogra’s writer profile at the end of the rejoinder discloses that he is also Vice President of the Association of Advertisers in Nigeria (ADVAN) and a member of the governing council of the World Federation of Advertisers.

Those are legitimate affiliations. But again, is he speaking as the President’s communications adviser? As an ADVAN executive? Or simply as a private citizen exercising his right to free expression?

The distinction matters because each role carries different responsibilities. When a senior presidential spokesman publicly champions a position that substantially aligns with the interests of a multinational technology company in litigation against a regulatory agency, perceptions matter as much as intentions.

Advertisement

Whatever he intended, the impression created is that the Presidency through its Ogra its spokesman has entered a dispute against a federal government agency. That is an impression no presidential aide should willingly create.

Interestingly, while ADVAN has maintained its longstanding disagreements with ARCON over ongoing advertising industry reforms, its President, Osamede Uwubanmwen, and its Board of Trustees Chairman, Aare Fatai Odeshile have appeared to be relatively restrained in publicly prosecuting this latest chapter of that disagreement. Instead, Ogra has emerged as the new ADVAN spokesman on industry matters.

Whether by design or circumstance, he now appears to be carrying the public argument that others within the association have largely avoided. That should concern him.

Advertisement

A presidential spokesman should be careful not to blur the distinction between public office and negative industry issues, particularly on matters where government itself has a direct stake through one of its regulatory agency.

The Office of the President should not be perceived as attacking a regulatory agency in the media or championing foreign interests ahead of national and consumer interests.

Is this really something to celebrate?

Advertisement

Setting personalities and motives aside and examining Ogra’s main claim, the court did not shield Meta from the law, only that ARCON failed to prove Facebook Nigeria’s relationship to Meta with admissible evidence rather than commercial assumption. But look at what proving that relationship “properly” actually requires in practice.

In the earlier related Abuja suit FHC/ABJ/CS/1701/2022, filed in September 2022, ARCON had gone the route Ogra says the law demands. It sued Meta Platforms Incorporated directly, and on 30 March 2023 the court granted leave to issue and serve the originating summons on Meta in the United States!

If that is what “doing it properly” looks like, then the rule of law Ogra is celebrating is one that only a well-resourced regulator, or a well-resourced litigant, can actually afford to invoke.

Advertisement

An ordinary Nigerian consumer deceived through advertising on Facebook cannot realistically litigate against Meta in California or Delaware. So while lawyers may applaud procedural purity, consumers are left asking a simpler question: who protects us?

Consumer protection is not exclusive to one regulator

It is disappointing that as a senior presidential aide, Ogra does not know that all government agencies have overlapping functions and all government regulatory agencies have consumer protection as their primary mandate, and that is why he would argue that ARCON is not Nigeria’s consumer protection regulator and that this responsibility belongs to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

Advertisement

Government agencies routinely enforce laws within their respective sectors where consumer welfare is implicated. NAFDAC prosecutes misleading advertisements relating to regulated products.

The Central Bank intervenes where financial promotions breach banking regulations. The Securities and Exchange Commission acts against unlawful investment promotions.

The Nigerian Communications Commission protects telecommunications subscribers. None of these agencies declines responsibility simply because the FCCPC also has consumer protection powers.

Advertisement

In fact, quite recently, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) recently secured the conviction of a social media content creator for promoting cannabis online.

The court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment after finding him guilty under the NDLEA Act for using social media to advertise cannabis products.

The NDLEA did not conclude that because the offending conduct involved advertising, it should wait for ARCON to act. Nor did it argue that advertising regulation fell exclusively within another regulator’s jurisdiction.

Advertisement

It acted because the offence touched directly on its statutory mandate. That is how sectoral regulation works. Government agencies exercise powers within their enabling laws, even where those powers intersect with advertising, consumer welfare or public safety.

The evidentiary bar Ogra defends is not the one Nigerian courts actually apply

Ogra insists that “commercial reality and legal proof are not always the same thing,” and that courts cannot repair a regulator’s evidentiary gaps. That would be a stronger argument if our courts had, in fact, been applying that standard consistently. They have not.

Advertisement

In January, a Lagos High Court in Femi Falana, SAN v. Meta Platforms Inc. held Meta liable as a joint data controller for content on Facebook without requiring Falana to first construct an elaborate paper trail proving Meta’s ownership and control of the platform; the relationship was treated as established fact, because it plainly is.

The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal reached a $220 million judgment against “Meta Platforms Incorporated (Facebook) and WhatsApp LLC” jointly on the same basis.

Our law also already possesses a doctrine built for exactly this situation, which is piercing the corporate veil, applied by the Supreme Court in Marina Nominees Ltd v. Federal Board of Inland Revenue to look behind a company shown to be acting as another’s agent, and invoked whenever, per Oyebanji v. State, a corporate form is used to dupe or evade.

Advertisement

None of these courts demanded that a claimant first litigate Meta’s corporate structure from scratch. Only Justice Bogoro’s court did. If Otegra’s “rule of law” means anything, it should mean consistency… the same platform, the same country, should not be a proven data controller in one courtroom and a legal stranger to its own product in another.

As referenced in my earlier piece, Nigeria is not the first place Meta has reached for corporate separateness as a shield, and Ogra’s “burden of proof” framing collapses when set against how other courts have treated the identical argument.

In Kenya, Meta spent years insisting it could not be held responsible for Facebook content moderators because they were technically employed by an outsourcing contractor, Sama; Kenya’s employment court rejected that, and the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, holding that Meta was the real employer because the moderators did Meta’s work under Meta’s control.

Advertisement

In Australia, Facebook Inc argued in litigation brought by the country’s privacy regulator that only its Irish affiliate, not Facebook Inc itself, conducted business in Australia; the Full Federal Court rejected that, and separately refused Facebook Inc’s own attempt to escape service of the very kind of cross-border process Ogra treats as an unavoidable technicality here.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, dealing with the very corporate architecture Meta uses to route around accountability, fined the Irish subsidiary itself €1.2 billion rather than accepting that the structure shielded anyone.

In each of these markets, courts and regulators found a way to hold the platform to account without first demanding a documentary trail that, in practice, only Meta’s own internal filings could ever fully. Indeed, Nigeria’s outcome is the outlier, not the norm.

Advertisement

Mr. Ogra ends his article by urging ADVAN to help foster reconciliation between advertisers and regulators.

That would have been commendable had ADVAN not spent years engaged in legal confrontation with ARCON over issues bordering on regulatory authority.

Let me stop here by emphasizing that the larger issue is no longer whether the presidential aide is entitled to his opinion. Every Nigerian enjoys that right.

Advertisement

The real issue is whether he should be the one leading what increasingly appears to be an industry campaign against a statutory agency of the same Federal Government he has been appointed to serve.

If Mr. Ogra wishes to be the public face of ADVAN’s long-running disagreements with ARCON, that is entirely his prerogative. But public office comes with obligations that demand restraint, neutrality and an acute awareness of perception.

The Office of the President should never be seen, rightly or wrongly, as taking sides in a dispute involving one of its own regulatory agencies and a multinational corporation.

Advertisement

That is why Mr. Ogra should reflect carefully on the implications of his intervention. If he believes so strongly in ADVAN’s cause that he intends to become one of its principal public advocates in its continuing contest with ARCON, then the honourable course would be to first relinquish his role as Senior Special Assistant to the President.

He cannot effectively wear the hat of a presidential spokesman while simultaneously projecting himself as a leading voice in a battle that pits an industry association against an agency of the Federal Government.

This is more so as every response directed at him in this matter inevitably risks being interpreted as a response to the Presidency itself.

Advertisement

That serves neither President Bola Tinubu, whose office ought to remain above such industry disputes, nor the integrity of government institutions.

Also read: Facebook Nigeria vs ARCON’s judgment: Not about fine but consumer protection at risk of vulnerability

Public confidence is not strengthened when a presidential aide appears to be publicly undermining one regulator while defending the legal victory of a private multinational company.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Are owls evil birds?

Published

on

owls

By Bolanle Bolawole,

 

Advertisement

Sometime this year, I was alerted to the presence of an owl perching on the PHCN line overlooking my apartment. And so what, I asked! The response I got shocked me: Don’t you know that owls are evil birds? I quickly jumped out of bed! I really never knew anything about owls. I went to my window and saw it. I began to “bind and cast.” I followed this up by picking up a stone and going after it. It flew away before I could reach it. Days later, the owl appeared again. I went after it again with prayer and action. Again, it flew away before I could reach it. Every night afterwards I checked the PHCN line before going to bed and whenever I woke up in the night. There was no sight of it. Still, I prayed.

Also read: Mourinho Holds Fire on Huijsen Red Card After 2-1 Loss

Not long afterwards, a classmate and friend who had suffered a stroke earlier, died. He was 69. Closely afterwards, my in-law, a mentor, died at the age of 89.

Then real tragedy struck in the same month with the death of his daughter and my niece, at 54. In July alone a chorister in my church lost her father who was 65.

Advertisement

My panel beater lost a 14-year-old child; a pastor friend died at a relatively young age, and then another schoolmate and professional colleague also passed on at the age of 67. More deaths of colleagues and known faces have since followed.

Are owls evil birds? Are they the harbingers or messengers of death? This is what Google has to say about this mysterious bird: “No, owls are not evil birds; they are simply wild, nocturnal animals fulfilling a natural role in the environment.”

But owls, all the same, have a really bad reputation. Their nocturnal lifestyle is one. They hunt and move around in the dark and people historically associate darkness with fear and the unknown. Owls also fly silently: Their specialized feathers let them fly completely silently, causing them to appear suddenly out of nowhere.

Advertisement

They also have human-like facial features, with their forward-facing eyes giving them an intense, penetrating gaze that can feel uncanny or unsettling. Owl’s eerie sounds, strange screeches, clicks, and hoots in the dead of night have also fueled ghost stories for centuries.

There are also a lot of cultural myths and superstitions pertaining to owls. Many cultures around the world historically view owls as bad omens or messengers of death.

“In general, owls are viewed as harbingers of bad luck, ill health, or death. The belief is widespread even today.” According to Wikipedia, this belief cuts across the globe. Among the Kikuyu of Kenya, it was believed that owls were harbingers of death. If one saw an owl or heard its hoot, someone was going to die.

Advertisement

In the Americas, the culture of the Uto-Aztec tribe, the Hopi, has “taboos surrounding owls, which are associated with sorcery and other evils. The Aztecs and Maya, along with other natives of Mesoamerica, considered the owl a symbol of death and destruction. In fact, the Aztec god of death, Mictlantecuhtli, was often depicted with owls. There is an old saying in Mexico that is still in use: ‘When the owl cries/sings, the Indian dies’.

“The Popol Vuh, a Mayan religious text, describes owls as messengers of Xibalba (the Mayan “Place of Fright”). The belief that owls are messengers and harbingers of the dark powers is also found among the Hočągara (Winnebago) of Wisconsin. When in earlier days the Hočągara committed the sin of killing enemies while they were within the sanctuary of the chief’s lodge, an owl appeared and spoke to them in the voice of a human, saying, ‘From now on the Hočągara will have no luck.’ This marked the beginning of the decline of the tribe. An owl appeared to Glory of the Morning, the only female chief of the Hočąk nation, and uttered her name. Soon afterwards she died.

“People often allude to the reputation of owls as bearers of supernatural danger when they tell misbehaving children, ‘the owls will get you.’ Also, in the Cherokee culture, as well as many other Native American cultures, owls are a very bad omen. It is said that if you are outside in broad daylight and an owl flies over your head, a family member or loved one would die within the coming week. In the Middle East, Arab mythology sees owls as bad omens.”

Advertisement

Some other cultures, however, see owls in a different light i.e. as a wise creature (for example, Hinduism in India.) In Japan, souvenir shops display little owl figurines that are supposed to bring good luck.

The Japanese word for owl is ‘fukurou’, and the first part of the word (‘fuku’) can be written with the same character as ‘luck’ or the whole word can literally be written as ‘no suffering/troubles’.”

So, what is it really about owls? It would appear owls signify different strokes for different people – and for different reasons as well. Superstition exists everywhere. And every superstitious belief has a logic behind it.

Advertisement

Most of the time, this is weaved around the fear of the unknown and the recoil from what Cicero, a Roman philosopher, called the ultimate evil.

Cicero, also noted for his oratorical gift, defined the Latin term “summum malum” as “the highest evil” and “summum bonum” as “the highest good” in his foundational ethical treatise titled “On the Ends of Good and Evil”.

He reportedly used these concepts to compare how different ancient Greek schools such as the Stoics, Epicureans, and Peripatetics defined the ultimate goal of human life (summum bonum) vis-a-vis what they sought most to avoid (summum malum). Cicero, however, merely built on the thoughts of earlier ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Advertisement

Thomas Hobbes, another Western philosopher and famous author of the “Leviathan” (1651) rejected the idea of a universal “summum bonum” due to conflicting human desires, but agreed that a definitive “summum malum” did exist: the fear of violent death.

What is certain, and which is known to all civilizations, is that the traffic between heaven and earth is never ending; and that this is as sure as day follows night.

As Orlando Owoh crooned, just as babies are born on a daily basis, so also do people die – owl or not owl. Were the universe to be rid of owls, people would still die! All the same because I am not Japanese, owls are not the kind of birds I love to see!

Advertisement

Robbing Peter to pay Paul: A lose-lose situation

Can these figures be correct? Since I came across them on the internet, I have not seen a rebuttal from any quarters. So, since silence is said to mean consent, I want to assume that the figures are factual – until the contrary is proven.

The disturbing information goes thus: “Six geo-political zones’ contribution to the VAT pool and (what each of them) received (in return) in half-year January -June 2026): 1. South-west contributed N2.16trn but received N691.56bn (31.99%). 2. South-south contributed N880.58bn but received N429.99bn (48.83%). 3. North-central contributed N302.81bn but received N350.17bn (115.64%).

Advertisement

4. North-west contributed N205.52bn but received N384.56bn (187.11%). 5. North-east contributed N152.82bn but received N285.70bn (186.95%). 6. The South-east contributed N79.27bn but received N230.89bn (291.28%).”

Are you not surprised that the South-east zone contributed the least but received the highest, percentage-wise? This means that a region always screaming “marginalization” is the one actually marginalizing others!

All the three zones in the North received more than they contributed; meaning that, like the South-east, they benefit from the sweat of others – in other words, they reap on a monthly basis from where they did not sow! The two burden-bearer zones are the South-south and South-west, with the latter being the greater losers.

Advertisement

Those riding on the back of others will never disembark unless they are forced to.

Unfortunately, free lunch offers no incentives for anyone to work harder.

And those being held down as beasts of burden will never achieve their true potential for as long as they carry the can for others. What a lose-lose situation in real or absolute terms!

Advertisement

FEEDBACK

RE: If state police are not to suffer a stillbirth…

Thank you so much for this piece! Brig-Gen. Jibola Togun once drew my attention to the lack of support by our governors for Amotekun after the exit of Rotimi Akeredolu from earthly life.

Advertisement

I have written no fewer than five times on the imperatives of the establishment of state police, drawing attention to how formal policing began at Abeokuta in 1903, but took off in 1905, followed by Ibadan in 1906 and Oyo, 1907 and from there to other divisions of Yorubaland.

If our forebears could see the imperatives of divisional and regional policing, the attitude of our governors after Akeredolu has been shocking and disappointing. The first responsibility of any government is security.

It is, in fact, the origin of government. We can see now that the establishment of state police has received a national stamp. Well done! – Lade Bonuola

Advertisement

Has Tinubu lost his grip on the Nigerian media?

The shortcomings you highlighted and the solutions proffered are top-notch. I am one of those who believe until tomorrow that (Dele) Alake should have been Tinubu’s spokesman (but) rumours have it that Gbaja and Alake can not co-habit at the villa! Reno Omokri is doing far better than all the government paid spokesmen, including Onanuga. Ask yourself why Dele Momodu and Femi Ojudu distanced themselves from Tinubu. Self-interest, I presume! I have read the “Adventure of Guerrilla Journalist” by Ojudu and I have heard Momodu narrate how Tinubu gave him 500 pounds while they were in exile. I have equally heard how Remi asked: “Uncle Dee, so you are not going to work for my husband?” That question is loaded. Nobody runs Tinubu down as does the duo! I don’t think the Nigerian Press is as dangerous as the TV anchor personalities. Many no longer read newspapers but depend on TV stations. Arise News, for instance, sees all government actions from negative perspectives. They know who to invite: hardly will you see their guests not towing their preferred line of thought.

More often than not, they carefully select the APC men they can easily bully. Rufyy is a pessimist par excellence, only he is honest and capable! To him, all Nigerians are corrupt and unpatriotic – except himself! Abati was my hall mate at Awo Postgraduate Hall, UI… He always loves to play smart (but) I think an average Nigerian knows that he is biased.

Advertisement

He is a PDP card-carrying member. Seun Okinbaloye is worse, despite the fact that the Finance Minister has said it times without number that the right question to ask is ‘where would Nigeria have been if the (Tinubu) reforms were not introduced’ and NOT ‘is your life better now than it was in 2023?’ Okinbaloye is aware of the 33 trillion paper-money printed, the huge amount owed foreign airlines, and the less than four billion dollars in the foreign reserves account.

Yet, Seun will have none of that! He is in the habit of parading statistics just to discredit the government.

The ones that favour the government are downplayed! Hardly will you see Seun ask the right follow-up questions from the opposition. Tinubu needs to strengthen his information machinery in all its ramifications. – Rev. Canon Dr. Kayode Abegunde.

Advertisement

Can anyone or organization in this country have the media in their pocket? I ask this question as someone who has spent almost 50 years in the media and who has done only media job all his life.

But I look at media relations in this country and ask myself: how can these guys be so dumb? All the attacks on opponents and critics will be useless after the President leaves office.

Also read: Mourinho Holds Fire on Huijsen Red Card After 2-1 Loss

Where is Buhari’s press value today? It is all gone! Where is Femi Adesina? And where is Garba Sheu? Government media minders are lazy; they are not deep enough; they focus on fighting political opponents and critics and once the government they serve disappears, they, too, will disappear with it! They do not bother to convince anyone; they just shout at us and think that is press relations! They should understudy Ogbuefi Nwokedi and Tunji Oseni! – Olowo Adebola.

Advertisement

 

(Published in the ON THE LORD’S DAY column in the SUNDAY TRIBUNE newspaper edition of Sunday, 20 September, 2026).

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending