Some think that even if the hate speech “decree” of intolerant Senator Sabi Abdullahi of Niger State North Senatorial District is now going to be passed, sans the death by hanging clause, it is still not worth passing.
They argue that gagging of the freedom of speech is symbolic death, especially if you go by the submissions of Nobel laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka, that, “The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.”
When citizens cannot freely express their opinions as guaranteed by Section 39(1) of Nigeria’s Constitution, which provides that “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference,” they might as well be dead, reason critics of the hate speech bill.
For the records, the hate speech bill seeks to promote national cohesion and integration by outlawing unfair discriminatory hate speech, in addition to establishing a national commission whose responsibility is to prohibit hate speech.
It is necessary to say what the hate speech is not, to check the near hysteria that is pervading the polity: It is incorrect to claim that the bill’s definition of hate speech is when you talk against the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, or any state institution.
It is also incorrect to claim that hate speech includes when you stand up to lead a peaceful protest against corruption, nepotism, crime, injustice, lawlessness, bad government, illegal arrest, extrajudicial killings by the Nigerian armed forces, and such excesses.
The bill defines hate speech as “when a person uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes, and or directs the performance of any material, written or visual, which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.”
It adds that anyone who engages in these dangerous activities, “commits an offence if such person intends to stir up ethnic hatred, or, having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person, or persons from such an ethnic group in Nigeria.”
The hate speech bill prescribes that anyone “who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to life imprisonment, and where the act causes any loss of life, the (offender) shall be punished with death by hanging.”
But imagine a Reinhard Bonkhe being arraigned for breaching hate speech law because a mob killed others as a result of his Christian preaching, or Salman Rushdie going to be hanged for writing “Satanic Verses”.
As you can see, the hate speech bill is a little more specific than Section 1 of the draconian Decree 4 of 1984, that was promulgated by the military government of Maj-Gen Muhammadu Buhari (retd.).
Decree 4 provides: “Any person who publishes in any form, whether written or otherwise, any message, rumour, report or statement, being a message, rumour, or rumour which is false in any material particular, or what brings, or is calculated to bring the Federal Government or Government of any state or public officer to ridicule or disrespect, shall be guilty of an offence.”
It adds that offending journalists and publishers can be tried by a military tribunal made up of three military officers and a serving or retired High Court Judge. (This may have been replaced by a High Court).
The rulings of the military tribunal, which included a maximum of two years’ imprisonment for the individual and N10,000 for the media house, cannot be appealed in any court of law. A friend did not substantiate his claim that this decree was abrogated by the Ibrahim Babangida military government that succeeded that of Buhari.
Those who suggest that the motive of Decree 4 was to stave off adverse criticism of Buhari, over unsubstantiated and unproved allegation of N2.8bn embezzlement, from his days as petroleum minister, wonder who Senator Abdullahi’s bill aims to protect.
Would it be the President Buhari who reportedly said he could afford to be reckless in his second and final term?
But when you consider the inciting song, rendered with gusto in Ebira language, by some misgiuded maidens supporting the re-election of Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, you will begin to wonder if indeed there shouldn’t be the hate speech bill proposed by Abdullahi.
These maidens, who sang that members of the opposition who refuse to agree with them would hear gunshots, should be rounded up and tried within the extant laws of Nigeria. A Women Leader of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party in Kogi State was reportedly incinerated in her own house by rival politicians. Such kind of incitements had led to the mindless carnage in Rwanda.
Abdullahi’s hate speech bill is superfluous. According to Dr. Bunmi Ajibade of the Mass Communication department of University of Lagos, the bill is an extra-luggage, as there are already a slew of laws against libel, slander, defamation, sedition, breach of public safety, public order, national security, and murder.
Critics of the hate speech bill cite the First Amendment to the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech of the press, or of the people, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
In wondering about the bill, Olusola Macaulay, spokesman for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s office in Nigeria, says, “We are not sure (that) what the government needs now is a bill, or an idea, to shut down people, or prevent people from being able to express their freedom of thought or information.”
He observes that hate speech and fake news have always been with man, and wonders whether the government was introducing this proposed legislation (through the hands of Senator Abdulahi) to prevent people from participating in politics.
Macaulay, who suggests, “What I think the government should do is to educate the people,” probably assumes the National Assembly that is considering the bill is the legislative arm of the government, whose executive branch, is headed by President Buhari. Minister for Information and Culture Lai Mohammed expressed concern about “abuse of the social media by those who are bent on spreading fake news and hate speech.”
The British High Commission takes “a strong stand against hate speech, which can incite violence and damage community relationships, (but) strongly supports the rights of individuals to express opinions, and peacefully challenge authority as an essential part of a free and open society.”
Under no pretext should an irrevocable weapon of mass citizen destruction be handed to any government, however benign. Already, the constitution has made Nigeria’s President extremely powerful.
It could get worse with the pseudo-legislative powers that the President can exercise by Executive Orders that enable him to “decree” policies almost without the consent of the National Assembly.
See how Omoyele Sowore’s #RevolutionNow was redefined as treasonable felony. The elastic nature of that proposed law has put too much discretion in the hands of the President, even before Abdullahi stretches it further.
Ironically, it looks like the senator and the Ebira maidens can profit from a Hadith of Prophet Mohamed (PBOH): “The best among you is the one who doesn’t harm others with his tongue and hands.”
Both the senator and the maidens tend to feed their deep-seated intolerance with morbid extremist sanctions.
