The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Hate speech

  • Ex-EFCC boss Waziri cautions politicians against hate speech

    A former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mrs. Farida Waziri, has urged politicians to run issue-based campaign instead of dwelling on the nation’s fault lines.

    She also urged political leaders seeking elective positions to prevail on their supporters to eschew violence.

    Mrs Waziri spoke against the backdrop of the commencement of electioneering campaign next Sunday, in line with the Independent National Electoral Commision (INEC) guideline.

    The former EFCC chairperson said the country needed peace and unity to have successful 2019 elections.

    “For me, I believe the elections will hold as scheduled. My only concern is the level of toxicity in the statements of some political leaders.

    “This is not really good for the polity especially now that election campaigns will formally begin in a matter of days from now. So, this is the time for every patriotic political leader most especially those aspiring for offices and who will be going round to mobilise the people, to avoid hate speech that is capable of inciting their followers and supporters into violence.

    “We cannot afford to set the country on fire with our words because if the nation is set ablaze and the people are killed, there is no other Nigeria in Europe, America or Asia to call our country and there will be no citizens to lead and govern. I think the people will be more interested in their plans, programmes and agenda for them than toxic words that breed violence,” she said.

  • Crescent varsity tackles hate speech

    A peaceful, non-offensive approach to religious preaching was the message that Crescent University, Abeokuta and the Qudwah Organisation of Islamic Preachers, Saudi Arabia, passed on to participants in a two-day workshop on checking the spread of hate speech and extremism while preaching.

    A statement by the university, noted that representatives of the Qudwah Organisation, made up of public servants from Saudi Arabia (researchers, judges, surgeons, engineers and Islamic jurists) counselled Imams and scholars to eliminate hate speeches and extremism while preaching.

    Leader of the delegation, Bader Abdullah-Alfadhel, explained that the training focused on “methodology and the need to eschew tendencies that may lead to deviation and extremism.”

    Abdullah-Alfadhel counselled Islamic leaders in Nigeria to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s approach in calling people to Islam, saying,he was not harsh.

    “What we are trying to show to the whole world is that we have different fields of professionals, educators, lawyers, judges, engineers and surgeons.

    “That shows that Islam is not just a religion limited to the mosque alone, we must improve human capacity and we should show to the world that Muslims are the leaders in good and developmental areas,” said. Abdullah-Alfadhel, a director at Qudwah and a Judge on Islamic Jurispudence in Saudi Arabia.

    He praised the founder of Crescent University, Abeokuta, Prince Bola Ajibola for his effort in propagating Islam in the world, especially in Africa.

    On his part, Prince Ajibola said all Muslims should be peace loving because the religion preaches peace.

  • Hate speech and right to freedom of expression

    The concept of “Freedom of Speech” or “Freedom of Expression” or “Freedom of the Press or Media” is certainly not new. Chapter II, in respect of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly under Section 22 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended introduced the concept thus: “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people”. Section 39 of the Constitution clearly emphasises full protection of any person who wishes to express his opinion as well as receive and impart ideas and information. In consequence, any law that goes contrary to these provisions is rendered null and void to the extent of such inherent inconsistency.

    Upon careful examination of Section 39 of the constitution, it shows that the freedom of speech and the press is a qualified right. That is to say, that the right to freedom of speech and the press is not absolute. Thus, citizens are enjoined not to abuse their freedom of speech. Where it seeks to harm another person or persons, such behaviour will not be condoned by the law. It is within this limitation that transgressions such as slander, libel and other excesses of freedom of speech are punishable – and this includes hate speech.

    What would qualify as hate speech is any form of communication that expresses hatred and attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender.

    The objective of the Independent National Commission For the Prohibition of Hate Speeches Act otherwise known as  National Cohesion and Integration Bill, or popularly known as the “Hate Speech Bill”, was to discourage the harassment of persons in Nigeria on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and race, just to name a few.

    In fact, the bill expressly states that “A person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and/or visual, which is threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred id likely to be stirred up against any person or person from such an ethnic group in Nigeria.”

    To be sure, there is no need for a separate law on hate speech as there are plethora of laws in operation in Nigeria that protect persons of different races, religions, ethnic origins, disability or gender in the event of any injury arising from any hate speech.

    The Hate Speech Bill was not the only perfidious attempt of the legislature whether in the colonial era or in the course of our chequered republics to control the right of citizen to freely express themselves in the media and press.

    The Public Order Act  is one of the relics and vestiges of colonialism. It was until 2007 when the Court of Appeal Abuja Judicial Division Per Adekeye J.C.A upheld the provisions of the constitution as well as Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act in respect of the freedom of expression and assembly in the case of Inspector General of Police V. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors.

    In the aforementioned case, the Respondents in compliance with the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Pubic Order Act applied for a police permit to hold unity rallies throughout the country to protest the rigging of the 2003 elections. Their request was refused and there was a violent disruption of the rally organized in Kano on September 22, 2003 on the ground that no police permit was obtained.

    The Court held that the “Public Order Act should be promulgated to compliment Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution in context and not to stifle or cripple it. A rally or placard carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign state. It is a trend recognized and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilized countries – it will not only be primitive but also retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally.”

    The court went further to state that “the Public Order Act relating to the issuance of police permit cannot be used as a camouflage to stifle the citizens’ fundamental rights in the course of maintaining law and order. Police permit has outlived its usefulness. Statutes requiring such permit for peaceful demonstrations, processions and rallies are things of the past”.

    This was the landmark case that declared null and void the Public Order Act due to its inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution, regarding Section 39 and 40 relating to freedom of expression and movement respectively.

    Sedition law has been in existence since the colonial era. The purpose behind the sedition law was to prevent the locals from complaining about the injustice under the colonialists and restrict the press from publishing material about the colonial rulers.

    In the case of R V. Sullivan, sedition was described as “…a comprehensive term which embraces all practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the state.” Therefore any word, deed or publication that will cause embarrassment to the government was perceived as seditious.

    The law on sedition was entrenched in Section 50 of the Criminal Code.

    In the landmark case of Arthur Nwankwo Vs. The State, Chief Arthur Nwankwo was charged for sedition when he published a book which was alleged to attack the governor of Anambra state, Jim Nwobodo. The Appeal Court discharged the case and held that if a government official felt personally attacked, they should have filed a defamation suit instead and that the sedition law should not be used as a tool to suppress the freedom of expression.

    Although the law has not been expunged from the Criminal Code, the court seems to be clear on their stance that the freedom of expression cannot be overlooked at the whim of government officials.

    The Frivolous Petition Bill was sponsored by Senator Bala Na’allah of the Kebbi South, member of All Progressive Congress. The bill was to be “An act to prohibit frivolous petitions; and other matters connected therewith”. It was expected that anyone who wanted to file a petition to the government was required to accompany their petition with an affidavit which would make the process for people to complain about public officers cumbersome and expensive. Failure to follow the provisions of the bill could be fined up to two million naira or serve a two year prison sentence.

    The provisions were extremely vague and broad to include social media platforms including private messaging apps like WhatsApp, hence the bill was nicknamed the “Social Media Bill”.

    The underlying objective of the bill was to restrict Nigerians from “criticizing” political and public officers through putting out “frivolous” petitions or posts published on social media. This bill brought a lot of uproar in the country.

    The Frivolous Petition Bill was clearly a violation of the right to the freedom of speech and the press.

    The bill even got the attention of the United Nations through the petition filed by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), a rights group in Nigeria, registering its displeasure against the bill. President Muhammadu Buhari also voiced out his refusal to give his presidential assent saying that the bill was inconsistent with the citizen’s right to free speech as entrenched in the Constitution as it was at variant with the country’s democratic ideals.

    It is my conviction that one of ways of easily overcoming the difficulties inherent in meeting the wishes and aspirations of the entire citizenry of a country is to choose the path of democratic good governance. I am optimistic that if the citizenry appreciate that democratic governance is a collective venture of both the governed and the governors, we would start to enjoy sustainable development in no time. By far more than the foregoing observations and recommendations for stemming the ever disturbing incidences of hate speech, in any society, is the overriding imperatives of dealing with the socio-economic and cultural conditions that dehumanize people of any nation to believe that resort to ethnic and clannish considerations other than merit, content and competences guarantee them better opportunities to engage in a heterogeneous society like ours.

     

    • Excerpts of a paper presented by Barrister Ugwummadu, National President CDHR at a media forum on Hate Speech held in Lagos.

  • The farce of ‘Hate Speech’

    As soon as one tries to move on from one issue of public embarrassment in this country, more embarrassing developments pop up like quick-fire. One’s pen can hardly catch up with the spate of absurdities emanating from within and outside the government. Every day, after picking up the morning papers, Nigerians wonder whether they are stuck in an Orwellian nightmare.

    Recently, Nigerians were faced with the news of a very controversial bill being considered by the Senate. The proposed law, publicly known as the “Hate Speech Bill” is sponsored by Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs. The major highlight of the bill is its stipulation that anyone who engages in “hate speech that results in the death of another person shall die by hanging upon conviction”. Also, in the proposed law, “harassment” on the grounds of ethnicity or racial contempt is punishable with “not less than a five-year jail term or a fine of not less than N10m or both.”

    The bill generally contains hefty punishment for so-called offences that, by their nature, can be twisted to suit the designs of corrupt or inept government officers or agents of the executive or judiciary. The potential of abuse of the bill is so great that no right thinking Nigerian should be heard to be in support, not to talk of elected representatives of the people who are in parliament to protect the rights of the people. With the emergence of this bill, the right of every Nigerian to free speech and freedom of expression is endangered.

    The bill prescribes that “a person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and/or visual, which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” commits an offence”. For the draftsmen and sponsor of this bill to presume that common insults demand legislative attention is perplexing.

    By the wording, any newspaper article, Facebook post, or utterance in any guise or form can be caught in the dubious net of “hate speech” if the ‘right’ person feels threatened, abused or insulted by it. It reads more like a dictator’s decree than words contained in a document proposed to become an act of a democratic parliament. It is a weak response by the government to criticism and legal opposition. Instead of responding with better performance and results, somehow, the government plans to respond with the threat of death by hanging.

    This draconian attempt to encroach on free speech is not the first time the government has demonstrated intolerance for otherwise free speech. Last year, the government revealed that it was monitoring online media and social media platforms for comments it claimed could incite people to violence. That came after the failure of the “Anti-Social Media Bill” introduced in 2015, which was stifled after strong rejection by the populace. Many of us knew that it was a way to silence critics, which unfortunately for the leaders of this government are an enhanced feature of modern society.

    Our democracy has been repeatedly qualified since we re-adopted the system of government many years ago, and to allow a bill like this to fly is to alter that system of government beyond recognition. Freedom is the essential feature of a democratic system, and while people have found ways to qualify democracy, like in the case of the United States of America’s Electoral College system, freedom cannot be qualified and more advanced societies like the US understand this. This is why free expression and speech is allowed in the US and other places and guaranteed by law. Just ask Donald Trump.

    Only recently, Tony Ezimakor, the Abuja Bureau Chief of Daily Independent was seized and held without charge by the Department for State Security, DSS, for publishing an investigative piece that exposed clandestine payment of millions of Euros for the release of some of the Chibok girls abducted by Boko Haram. Despite being a journalist, he was held for about a week even while several rights groups and individuals from all walks raised alarm and demanded his release. Some groups gathered to ‘celebrate’ his release afterwards, in what can be described as a sad and unfortunate event in a democratic society.

    While we fight for our journalists who risk life and limb to tell the news, the barrel of the gun is slowly turning on the general public; People of all stature -the rich, poor, ignorant etc. – Nigerians, who will be unlucky to be targeted with the obnoxious piece of legislation that the hate speech bill will become if it ever makes it into law. The indicators are not encouraging going forward and where the people are caught in the middle of measures designed to stifle the opposition, then politics has again moved into the gutter that it very often ends up in.

    At this time, globally, 104 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, including the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2015, and Benin in 2016. Of the remaining countries, seven have abolished death penalties for ordinary crimes while 30 are considered to have abolished it in practice because they do not carry out any executions. Amongst the 57 or more countries that retain the death penalty, many, at least, have outlawed crude executions like hanging, in place of “more humane” methods like fatal injections. It is in this world that the Nigerian Senate has now passed for first reading, a bill that prescribes death by hanging for a supposed crime that is so open to individual interpretation.

    The DSS, police and lawmakers have been taken by the spirit of the military era and one need not go too far to determine its source. Someone needs to remind these agencies and government officials that we run a democracy in this country. The Gung-ho tactics of yesteryears should not be allowed to creep back into the system. Where it has already consumed the minds of people in charge, the electorate need to make an informed choice in 2019. There is no compromising basic freedom like the freedom of expression.

    Beyond the archaic reasoning behind the bill and its prescribed punishments, the bill also seeks to create an “Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches”. It seems that every law enacted by Nigerian legislators has a commission or agency created to oversee it. While it is troubling that multiple commissions and agencies are being created to eat into already lean government resources, it is doubly perplexing to find out that these commissions and agencies are created for roles that are duplicitous and absurd as in this case.

    The bill is a Trojan horse that must not be let to pass through the gates of the National Assembly. One wonders why the government is so eager to regulate free speech in this age. There have been repeated attempts by this government to criminalise dissent and even outright contravention of law to stamp out criticism. This move by the sponsor and his collaborators is in very bad faith and has nothing to do with hate speech which no reasonable person endorses.

    There is already so much ethnic tension in the country, propagated by the government and ignorant private citizens alike. To create a legal weapon that can be employed by the evil doers in our midst is unspeakable at a time when we need to look beyond our differences. The government has found a problem and instead of solving it, it seeks to exploit it to achieve its own draconian agenda to the detriment of the people.

    We all heard the drivel that emanated from the likes of Nnamdi Kanu before his disappearance, much of which can rightly be counted as hate speech. Even then, there were existing laws that were adequate to charge and try him and many others like him. One can say that the introduction of the bill is a greater evil than the totality of drivel that ever escaped the mouth of the now AWOL Kanu.

  • Death for hate speech: one law too many

    Death for hate speech: one law too many

    In theory, there is nothing wrong with attempts to control hate speech, particularly after its definition has been clearly established.

    The fundamental human right, we should say, is the right to be treated with a certain attitude: an attitude that expresses the understanding that each person is a human being whose dignity matters. . . . Someone’s most basic human right, from which all other human rights flow, is his right to be treated by those in power in a way that is not inconsistent with their accepting that his life is of intrinsic importance and that he has a personal responsibility for realising value in his own life.—Ronald Dworkin in Principles for a New Political Debate: Is Democracy Possible Here?
    States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention.— International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

    The first part of the epigraph overleaf refers particularly to American political culture once studied by Ronald Dworkin. In many ways, the principles invoked in Dworkin’s book apply to the practice of democracy universally, and more directly, to the reading of a new bill in the Nigerian legislature to enact a law that, among other things, sets out to punish Hate Speech with death by hanging. The second one is the first part of Article 5 of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which specifically addresses the danger for harmony in countries and across the world of all manners of discrimination and the need for signatories to protect the rights of all citizens from assaults verbal and physical on account of race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, etc.

    In the past few days, the Nigerian Senate has been considering a bill to address what the sponsor sees as the danger of Hate Speech, which is viewed as a form of discrimination against a person or group. In the few days of the life of the bill, now in its second reading, many patriotic democrats and citizens have already registered strong opposition to any law that sets out to derogate from the most basic of citizens’ rights in the country: the freedom of speech and expression. The interest of today’s column is, in imitation of Dworkin, to raise issues with the level of political discourse, especially among people voted to make laws for the country and the level of understanding of the spirit of the constitution by such lawmakers, namely, that laws will not be made that are in consistent with the provisions of the constitution, especially Fundamental Rights: to life, dignity of human person, to personal liberty, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom of expression and the press, and restriction on and derogation from fundamental rights (Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution).

    The latest news from the Nigerian Senate is a bill sponsored by Sabi Abdullahi (Niger-APC).  The bill seeks the establishment of an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches to enforce hate speech laws across the country and ensure the elimination of hate speech. The bill proposes that, “A person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and/or visual, which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” commits an offence for which punishment will range from five years imprisonment to death by hanging for those whose hate speeches lead to the death of another person or a group of persons.  The sponsor of the bill goes further on why the bill is needed: “In the past couple of years in this country, hate speech is driven by many variables; the issue of religion and ethnicity and because of that, a lot of lives have been lost. They question I want to ask is why.”

    In theory, there is nothing wrong with attempts to control hate speech, particularly after its definition has been clearly established. Without such definition, hate speech may become too nebulous to be proved. For example, many farmers in the last few years of incessant attacks from Fulani herdsmen—be they from Nigeria, Niger, Mali, or Chad—have overtly referred to their molesters as Fulani herdsmen. Many Nigerians have complained that such classification is ‘hate speech.’ Even though all law-enforcement agencies have not confirmed that such herdsmen are not Fulani. Such absence of another identity for the herdsmen throws up the need for a much clearer definition than what is before senators. From Senator Abdullahi’s emphasis on religion, religious comments by Muslim clerics and Christian clergy that ridicule and demonize African traditional religion is likely to be a matter for litigation. Such words as Kafir or Keferi or Aborisa will become an example of hate speech.

    Many countries: UK, USA, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, South Africa, etc., have addressed in their laws the concept and practice of hate speech through their penal codes. I am not sure that existing laws against libel, defamation of character, slander, sedition, cannot take care of what the proposed bill calls hate speech. If it does, then Nigeria needs to learn from the African-American saying: “If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But if the sponsor and his supporters believe that none of the existing laws in the penal and criminal codes is good enough, then senators need to do what other countries do: do ample research on the spread of hate speech in the country and consult fully with their constituents before rushing to create a law that may become either an albatross or the opening of a Pandora’s box.

    Many commenters have drawn attention to the deployment of the Nigeria Factor in the bill under consideration in the senate. For example, citizens are worried that the bill may be become a mechanism or excuse for political repression or silencing of political dissent. The country has a robust law in respect of all manners of homicide—manslaughter, murder, etc. Citizens are worried why such laws cannot be used to take care of people who talk other individuals or groups of persons to death, directly or indirectly.

    More concerning is the creation of an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches. While the punishment of persons accused of hate speech falls into the jurisdiction of the judiciary, creating a special bureaucracy that will also put detection and punishment of hate speech within the control of the executive branch of government creates fears for members of political parties that are in competition with the ruling party at any time. Of the many countries that have created laws against hate speech, it is hard to find anyone that establishes a commission that may compete with the judiciary on such a sensitive matter. If citizens are already complaining about politicisation of the EFCC, it is not surprising that citizens and groups are already expressing doubts about politicisation of the proposed anti-Hate Speech Commission.

    As some lawyers have argued, the Hate Speech bill currently in the Senate has the capacity to derogate from a constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Right, the freedom of speech and of the press. Despite the recurrent proviso in the 1999 Constitution: “Nothing in this section (Fundamental Human Rights) shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society,” there is an urgent need for proponents of Independent National Commission  for Hate Speeches to establish that the law as constructed fits into the category of laws in a democratic society, i.e. it does not derogate from citizens’ fundamental human rights. To assist the senators, citizens in their constituencies do not need to wait for them on such important matters. Constituents should go to senators to exchange ideas on what bills they consider democratic or not, before they are passed.

     

  • Hate speech, fake news threat to national security, says El-Rufai

    Hate speech, fake news threat to national security, says El-Rufai

    Governor Nasiru El-Rufai of Kaduna State on Wednesday said hate speech and fake news were the biggest threat to national security and called for collective action to tackle them.

    The governor made the observation when he received Maj._Gen. Anthony Alolagbe, the new Commander, Operation Safe Haven, a special task force established in 2010 in Plateau, who paid him a courtesy visit in Kaduna.

    “There is need to curtail the emerging trend of using social media to create crisis in the country.

    “I think collectively we have to fight it and discourage those behind it by arresting and prosecuting them,’’ he said.

    El-Rufai disclosed that the social media had been used to incite people to violence in the state, but warned that the government would not condone that anymore.

    “In this state, we will not allow anyone engage in propagation of hate speech and fake news; there is provision in the penal code in Kaduna state that deals with that.’’

    He however expressed satisfaction that Nigerians were “becoming more aware of the dangers hate speech, fake news and the abuses on social media pose to the peace, unity and stability of this country.’’

    El-Rufai told the commander that his administration was putting in place measures to promote social justice, and was working closely with all security agencies to sustain peace in the state.

    “There are still challenges, but with the intervention of army and police it has been curtailed to some extent,” he said, adding that security agencies were doing their best to address them.

    Earlier, Alolagbe explained that the operation’s major duty was to protect all civilians in  Southern Kaduna and Plateau, especially those living along the boundaries of the two states.

    “We have deployed our security and patrol teams to ensure free movement of people carrying out lawful activities, and we have been able to curtail cross boarder banditry,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the mandate of Operation Safe Haven was extended to cover southern Kaduna in July 2017 after clashes there.(NAN)

  • Check hate speech, fake news -Group

    Check hate speech, fake news -Group

    A concerned group, Women in Peace Building Network has resolved to use massive advocacy to check hate speech and fake news.

    The group expressed its resolution in a communiqué it issued after its one day forum on security challenges in the south eastern part of the country held in Enugu.

    Signed by Mrs Azuka Egbuonu, one of the coordinators of the group, the women raised concerns about the prevalence of hate speech and the impact of violence and crisis on women and children.

    “We resolved that we would engage the legislators, religious leaders and traditional rulers in the south eastern part of the country to sustain peace.

    fakenews

    “We also solicited the assistance of the state governors in the south eastern part of the country to develop a robust and practical plan to empower the teeming number youths in the region,’’ the women said.

    They thanked Nigerians that had shown genuine concern to the recent development in the region and promised to promote peace and unity of the country.

  • Thoughts on social media monitoring

    It emerged recently that the Ministry of Defence is monitoring the conversations of Nigerians on social media. This is a move to check hate speech in the wake of several provocative pronouncements made against certain ethnic groups by others.

    Although there has always been some friction among ethnic groups in the country, a new dimension was introduced recently when the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) gave the Federal Government an ultimatum to conduct a referendum in the Southeast on Biafra.

    Shortly after that, a coalition of northern youth associations gave an October 1 ultimatum to the Igbo living in the North to leave; although they have reportedly suspended that call. For a rather long  time, these pronouncements were not roundly condemned and the proclaimers prosecuted as is expected of a lawful society. Consequently, hate speeches and music went viral on social media, with some of it sneaking into conventional media. This continued until the return of President Muhammadu Buhari from his 103-day medical leave and the notification by the Ministry of Defence that it is monitoring social media.

    Since this became public knowledge, Nigerians have been reacting in various ways. There are those who are quick to argue that this amounts to infringement of the citizens’ freedom of expression. This group argues that citizens are free to express themselves however they want, without any hindrance whatsoever from the government.

    There are also those who think it is high time the government did something about the war songs and war language turning our social media into virtual theatres of war, with citizens calling for one another’s head and blood. I belong to the second group. Although it is emotionally appealing to argue against government’s monitoring of the social media, the reality of our situation dictates otherwise. Freedom cannot be absolute. Whenever one man’s freedom to swing his hand extends too far, it infringes on his neighbour’s freedom to keep an eye. The government has a duty to ensure both freedoms stand by passively without inviting anarchy.

    Although I believe it is proper to monitor people’s activities on social media, I also understand the concerns raised by those who oppose this move. First, given the penchant of our institutions for abuse and political manipulation, Nigerians are concerned that this apparently well-intentioned move may be hijacked to spy on political opponents to muzzle voices of dissent in the country.

    Second, the people are worried that the monitoring institution may be unable to be an impartial umpire, thereby promptly the cracking down on hate speech from one segment of the country while glibly looking the other way when hate speech emanates from another segment. Third, people are concerned that once the government effectively establishes control of social media, it will refuse to relinquish it even after the security considerations that necessitated it have abated.These are all genuine concerns.

    But, Nigerians on either side of the debate need to realise that this intervention, no matter how imperfect, is better than nothing at all. There are several people on social media who abuse that platform by provoking needless acrimony along ethnic and religious lines. Some of these elements may be sponsored by evil people whose interests are served, at least in the interim, by our nation’s descent to anarchy. Others may just be not-very-responsible elements who think it is the duty of the government to maintain order and peace while their own duty is to toy with that peace by playing with the sensibilities of the people. It is appalling to notice that those who constitute the bulk of these social media agent provocateurs are young citizens who, in other countries, are in the driving seat of responsible leadership.

    Therefore, even though this may not be a comfortable idea, we must give the government some leeway to curtail these excesses; and in the interim, this may involve monitoring social media. However, the government must summon courage to address the socio-political and economic imbalances in the system that predispose the nation to becoming a thriving industry of hate speech. We cannot hide from the fundamental questions staring us in the face. Why is there always something to quarrel about along ethnic and religious lines? Why does the average Nigerian feel threatened by his compatriots from other ethnic and religious groups? Whenever we can find the courage to selflessly address these issues – when we can evolve as a nation built on trust, common good and mutual prosperity – only then can we banish the fear of ourselves and relish our full liberties as a people.

     

    • Msonter, 500-Level Medicine and Surgery, BSU, Makurdi

     

  • Hate speech or restructuring?

    SIR: The ruling elite are the problem of this country; with the acquiescence of the mainstream media, fearful of the rising tide of demand for devolution of powers and restructuring of the country, they have done the law-abiding citizens of this country a great disservice by conflating legitimate political agitation with “hate speech”. The Ministry of Information and Culture has since been airing advertisements of the horrors of “hate speech” and how that inexorably leads to “genocide”. The premise upon which this benevolent “public information” effort is based is seriously flawed, and is potentially dangerous. It is like a landlord who choose to evict (rather than talk to) a recalcitrant tenant loaded with a gallon of petrol and a match in his hand. What happens next to that house does not even bear thinking about for all concerned.

    Contestation of ideas and controversy over who gets what, where and when do not amount to “hate speech”; it is the bread and butter of modern democratic politics. By putting a blanket ban on “hate speech”, the Nigerian establishment may be gathering for dinner on a power keg. Apart from that, there is no gainsaying that any attempt to silence dissent would simply drive it underground. For those who wish to use this to muzzle the quest for devolution of power, agitation for secession, resource control and those agitating for restructuring in this country, what I believe is that, “there is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come”.

    This country is  severely stressed because the structures to make it function are faulty. There is too much government. Government is a national bakery where those who work in it must share the bread they refuse to help bake. In government, there are massive programmes of deliberate theft of public funds. The people themselves are severely stressed. The more welfare they expect, the less they get. The more they are told about peace and security, the more they are harassed both by the private armies of the powerful few and hoodlums who are the products of inequities, deprivation and urban denials. Our law-enforcement agencies are few, ill-equipped and inadequately motivated. The society itself has not been trained to ask questions from those who make it by the simple procedure of joining the political class, understandably, because government is a stranger to the people, and is a place where taking what is not yours is an achievement to be celebrated, and for which national can be conferred.

    If there is restructuring and the political arm of government is restructured, we would have a federal government with more time to plan for a powerful country, a central government that would be more efficient and less corrupt, a regional government that would be a buffer between the state and centre, and that would be more handy to settle problems of the region and plan the development and growth of the region.

     

    • Ademola Orunbon,

    Oke-Posu, Epe, Lagos State.

  • Hate speech and the liberal state

    Hate speech and the liberal state

    The perennial question of how a liberal state ought to deal with speech it considers inimical to its interest, including its unity and progress, has been a challenge from the inception of liberalism as a governing philosophy. There does not appear to be a consensus on the solution, not for lack of trying, but for the fact that many self-described liberal political systems feature conflicting interests which yield different emphasis.

    Some states, reeling from past atrocities in the exercise of freedom, choose the legal route to preserve the unity and dignity of the state and prevent a repeat of history. This is the case of Germany and its clampdown on seditious and defamatory speech. Others, not minding a fallout from hurtful expressions, choose fidelity to the liberal ideal which protects free speech even if it is at the expense of national unity. The United States is a leading example.

    Writing for four Justices in the Matal versus Tam case in June, Justice Alito of the U. S. Supreme Court observed that ‘the idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend…strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”’

    For many, the opinion is too liberal. However, a state that gives no credence to freedom of expression but chooses the weapon of the law to regulate all speech is by no means an exemplar of liberalism. That is the road to totalitarianism, which is now generally discredited as a legitimate political practice even by those who exemplify it.

    The question may be raised “what is so unique about liberalism that its principles which prioritize individual freedom must trump competing ones which prioritize state or national interest?” There is no better answer to this question than the one provided by its foremost apostle, John Stuart Mill.

    For us to appreciate the thinking behind the prioritization of individual freedom, we must come to terms with the conceptual understanding that instructs it. And in doing so, we may also come to appreciate the gulf between that understanding and the reality of our own society.

    For Mill, individuality is to be appreciated, valued, and respected because individual human beings are endowed with great potentials for outstanding moral choices. When society enables those potentials to be freely realized, the consequence is a community of great human beings who care for one another and for the community. On the other hand, when those potentials are wrecked by an overbearing social control, whether in the form of public opinion or legal imposition, the consequence for society is social dysfunction, including alienation and anomie.

    Thus, beside his view that individual freedom is an end in itself, Mill offered its promotion as instrumental to the end of social cohesion and social progress. This was why he decried the “likings and dislikings of society” as the determinants of the rules that individuals are supposed to follow. For, such likings and dislikings could be idiosyncratic at best, or at worst, inimical to social progress. Case in point: social dress codes. Mill offers a “very simple principle”:

    “The sole principle for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill specifically ruled out the personal good of individuals as a legitimate reason for subjecting them to social control.

    We may rightly respond: but this is not the point of the regulation of speech, which may well conform with Mill’s principle because unregulated speech can harm other individuals as well as an entire society. Therefore, regulation of speech is not anti-liberal. A clear example is the case of declaring a false fire alarm in a crowded movie theater. Certainly, that kind of speech is subject to control because of its potential for catastrophe.

    The liberal contention, as stipulated by Mill, is that the example we just cited is an isolated one and not all opinions that have been subjected to social control belong to that category. What is decried is the coercion of opinion based on “the likings and dislikings” of society. Silencing the opinion expressed by individuals, no matter how noxious it is, is an illiberal device. “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    Based on the belief that the clash of opinions in the market-place of ideas promotes the truth, liberals oppose regulation of speech which could negate the benefits of such exchange. Still, doesn’t it depend on the content of the opinions? If you insist that the world is round and I insist that it is flat, we have a clash of opinions. With an open public debate, backed up with evidence on both sides, the truth will come out. No harm is done to society by the free exchange.

    What about hate speech, of which there are several variants, including political campaign jabs at individuals, ethnic stereotypes, religious diatribe, clannish rhetoric within the same ethnic nation, etc.? At the expense of analytical clarity, we could group all together and pronounce an edict of prohibition on them. But it may do more harm than good. While some expressions in these various groups may be considered hateful, not all are.

    Indeed, many such expressions are considered as merely funny expressions even by the parties presumably targeted. Consider the following: Oyo dobale inu e loso (An Oyo man prostrates, but really his innermost part is standing erect). This is a remark about the alleged duplicity of an Oyo indigene, which covers the entire old Oyo province. This has become such a common parlance that presumably no Oyo man would reasonably consider it necessary to take offence. It is in the same category as Ibadan le mo e o mo layipo, which refers to the potential of an Ibadan indigene as a skillful social dribbler.

    What then is the major target of the government’s offensive against hate speech, which in the words of the Vice President is identical with terrorism?

    Minister Lai Mohammed combined hate speech, disinformation, and fake news in his well-publicized remarks on the matter, on the ground that they all have the same motive of causing disaffection among the populace and discrediting the government. If we abstract from the hard to fathom potential motivation, however, there appears to be a difference. Disinformation and fake news are easily debunked as the Minister did on several occasions that he referenced in his Jos address.

    Further, while purveyors of disinformation may have no motive of hate or disaffection because they may genuinely believe that what they convey is true; hate speech is, by definition, an expression of hate with a view to incite a group or groups to violence. If you pronounce that a group or an individual is nothing more than vermin or maggot, you are declaring that they are fitting creatures for elimination from the human race to which you do not believe they belong.

    George Lakoff, a Cognitive Scientist and Linguist at the University of Berkeley has argued that language can change brains for the better and the worse. “Hate speech changes the brains of those hated for the worse, creating toxic stress, fear and distrust—all physical.” He also observed that this internal harm can even be more “severe than an attack with a fist.”

    Hate speech is speech-act, fighting words, which directly harm their targets. As such, consistent with Mill’s principle of liberty, they are subject to public control. Therefore, the provisions of our legal system which criminalize such speech-acts are defensible by appeal to Mill’s liberal principle.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs