Segun Awosanya, a Nigerian realtor, human rights activist, and business and strategic consultant, has offered his insights on the potential outcomes of excessive control. Segalink, as he is commonly referred to, holds the belief that excessive control can hinder innovation and limit personal freedom.

During a recent interview on CityTalks with Reuben Abati on City 105.1, the well-known human rights activist shared his perspectives on a range of urgent matters.
The Nigerian government's recent decision to ban the widely-used social media platform, Twitter, has caused significant disruption in the digital realm. This controversial decision took effect on June 5, 2021, causing millions of Nigerian users to lose access to the platform and igniting a passionate debate about the consequences of this action. Following Twitter's removal of messages from Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari and the subsequent temporary suspension, the Nigerian government has decided to implement a prohibition on the use of the social media platform. President Buhari's messages, cautioning Nigerians in the southeastern part of the country, particularly the Igbos, about the potential of a recurrence of the 1967 Biafran Civil War in light of the ongoing insurgency, were deemed inappropriate by Twitter. Consequently, access to Twitter has been restricted by the Nigerian government within the nation.

Nigeria's decision to ban the social media platform was influenced by a range of issues affecting the country, one of which was the removal of the president's tweets. The platform has been a hotbed for misinformation and fake news, leading to real acts of violence. The Nigerian government defended its action by emphasising the platform's ongoing use for activities that endanger the nation's unity and stability.

The ban imposed by Nigerian authorities has faced widespread criticism from international entities. Amnesty International, the British, Canadian, and Swedish diplomatic missions in Nigeria, along with the United States and the European Union, have collectively voiced their disapproval of the ban. The Nigerian Bar Association and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have announced their plans to legally challenge the ban. Twitter users have raised concerns about a suspension on the platform that they find deeply troubling.

According to a recent study, Nigeria has become the 66th country to impose restrictions on social media access, joining a growing list of nations that have taken similar measures in the past six years.
The Nigerian government has announced its decision to lift the ban on the popular microblogging site, Twitter. According to official sources, the action is set to begin at exactly 12 a.m. on Thursday.

After a long seven-month period of restricted access, Nigerians can finally rejoice as platform visits are now restored. Users are now able to access the site without the requirement of a virtual private network (VPN).

In a statement, Mr. Awosanya voiced his concerns about the government's efforts to stifle a popular platform for public expression, government oversight, and business operations. Mr. Awosanya believes that the government's measures are ultimately harmful and do not produce any positive results.

He emphasised the significant financial consequences that could arise from a potential Twitter shutdown. Based on the analysis, the cost of suspending the platform for 7 months, or 222 days, would be an astonishing $26.1 billion. This staggering amount, when converted to the local currency, equates to around 10.72 trillion naira at the current exchange rate.
Upon closer examination, a striking contrast becomes apparent when considering Nigeria's debt to other nations.

The government has issued a statement addressing the matter, emphasising their main priority of justifying their actions by pointing out a perceived lack of control.
The speaker highlighted that the implementation of more stringent measures has failed to produce any significant results.
It is interesting to consider why the government focuses on censorship and control instead of creating a supportive regulatory environment for global technology initiatives.