At a time terrorists, bandits, kidnap- pers, armed robbers and other types of criminals are reportedly having a field day in the country, the Senate is regaling all of us with a bill that will not only criminalize purveyors of hate speech but put them to death by hanging if convicted. The Hate Speech Prohibition Bill has unfortunately passed the first reading in the Senate before Nigerians rose against it. The controversial bill entitled, “National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches (Establishment etc) Bill 2019” was sponsored by Deputy Senate Whip, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi.
It will be recalled that Senator Abdullahi (Niger North) sponsored a similar bill in the 8th Senate when he was the Chairman of the Senate Com- mittee on Media and Publicity. The bill then prescribed among others death by hanging for anyone found guilty of the offence.
Under the former bill, which did not offer a definition of hate speech, those the bill will criminalize include “A person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or directs the perfor- mance of any material written and/or visual, which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, commits an offence, if such person intends thereby 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.”
There is no indication that the new bill is significantly different from the one of last year. Essentially, the new bill prescribes death sentence on anyone found guilty of spreading a falsehood that led to the death of another person. It also seeks to establish a Na- tional commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech, which will help in the investigation and prosecution of of- fenders. Most Nigerians have spoken against the bill and urged the Senate to drop it.
Although hate speech can be injurious to national cohesion and against persons or group targeted, its defini- tion is fluid. It is good also to punish the purveyors of hate speech, but punishing them with death by hanging is draconian. It is like killing an ant with a sledge hammer. In fact, the problem of Nigeria now is not hate speech. Nigerians are confronted with more sinister problems than hate speech. I shall return to this theme in the course of the essay.
The Rwandan genocide was reportedly caused by hate speech. All cri- ses cannot be blamed on hate speech alone. There might be other underlying factors. In a politically divisive nation like Nigeria, definition of hate speech is likely to be problematic. What is hate speech to say the All Progressives Congress (APC) may not be hate speech to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and vice versa. Therefore introducing hate speech law in Nigeria will lead to avoidable crisis.
What is hate speech? According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, “Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory lan- guage on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” The Google Dictionary defines hate speech as “abusive or threatening speech or writing that ex- presses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.”
Since there are enough laws in our law books to try people who defame others, the Hate Speech bill is not necessary. For instance, the Criminal Code Act 1995 (CCA), The Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provision Act 1960 (PC) and the Cybercrimes Act 2015 have enough provisions and pen- alties against hate speech.
The lawmakers should make laws that will enhance good governance as well as laws that are in line with the tenets of democracy. This bill lacks these attributes.
There is no doubt that the bill contradicts Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which guarantees freedom of speech of all Nigerians. According to the section under reference, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the free- dom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information with- out interference.”
The bill will also muzzle the freedom of the Press which is enshrined in Section 22 of the Constitution, which states that “The press, radio and television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to up-hold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.”
If the bill becomes law, it will turn Nigeria into an autocratic state and permanently silence the voice of the opposition. It can equally be abused by those in power at the centre. It will be detrimental to our emerging democracy. Democracy thrives on plurality of opinions and inclusion of all people in the democratic process.
This bill should be given the same treatment meted to the “Frivolous Petitions Bill” sponsored by in 2015 by the Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’ Allah. After much outrage by Nigerians, the bill which was tagged “Anti-Social Media Bill” was jettisoned.
At a time the world is moving against death penalty, it is ridiculous that our lawmakers are embracing it not for heinous crimes but for hate speech, which definition is amorphous and indeterminate. There is no way the hate speech bill will positively advance the course of this democracy that is threatened everyday by undemocratic attitudes of our politicians. The lawmakers should make laws that would ensure accountability in government.
Nigerians need laws that will prioritize the security and welfare of all Nigerians. They need laws that will tackle corruption, kidnapping, terrorism, banditry and other heinous crimes in the society. Nigerians also want good roads, adequate electricity, potable water, quality education, affordable health care system and security. These are issues that our lawmakers should be concerned with. Therefore, the lawmakers should give the bill the same treatment it received last year.