Nigerian leaders have recently been incensed by the amount of hate speech permeating the public space ever since the ultimatum issued by the hitherto obscure Arewa Youths Forum to Igbos living in the North to vacate within a specifi ed time frame. First it was the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo spleening his concern, stressing that it would be criminalized as an act of terrorism at a national security seminar organized by the Department of State Security. On return, President Muhammadu Buhari also buttressed this commitment by further registering his unhappiness thus while addressing the nation for the fi rst time after long stay in London.
By sheer coincidence, almost all the national dailies of last Monday (August 21) stressed that aspect of the speech through front page banner headlines with one revealing that a court for specifi cally adjudicating the matter is in the offi ng. Hate speech deals with written or verbal attack on individuals and groups on account of their race, religion, gender, ethnicity or other demographic indicators which is capable of exciting hostility, discrimination and/or violence.
Violence, on the other hand, can be direct, structural or cultural. Th e European Court of Human Rights defi nes hate speech as “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, antiSemitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.” Diverse opinions are held by stakeholders with regard to the regulation of hate speech. Owing to the heterogeneity and the attendant volatility of Nigerian polity, some feel that it should be sanctioned.
Others think any legal measure taken would be unwarranted circumscription of freedom of expression protected by section 39 of the 1999 constitution, and consequently on the eff ective working of democracy as it can be used by power wielders to silence opposition. Yet others think that the bone of contention transcends legal sanction; rather remedies should be sought via other institutions. Head or tail, it is pertinent to clarify that freedom of speech has never been absolute in any society at any time in human history. Measures, legal, moral, cultural or otherwise, are always put in place by states and societies to curtail the excesses of free speech. Hence today, in most countries of the world there are defamation, obscenity, public order and other corollary laws such as blasphemy. Th ere is nothing new about this. A casual scanning of Plato’s Republic vindicates how Socrates advocated censoring certain speeches and media content for public morality and healthier society. Even the staunchest protagonists of free expression such as John Milton, J. S. Mill and Th omas Jeff erson have never clamoured for untrammelled freedom. Th e same argument threads our international laws where, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights one fi nds such clauses as “the exercise of this right (freedom of expression) carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subjected to certain restrictions… for respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Th is was taken from articles 19 & 20 of ICCPR. Th e Nigerian predicament over hate speech/free speech boundary was arguably caused by blind imitation of other land’s laws. Section 39 of the 1999 constitution appears a duplication of the famous US First Amendment wherein Freedom of speech is unequivocally guaranteed but suspended without the corresponding obligation. Th is may be a result of our euphoria to democratize hence borrowed from the ‘best democracy’ without thinking twice over the context. Although you have jurists like Hugo Black opining ‘no law means no law…’ with regard to the interpretation of the First Amendment, the mainstream view among the Supreme court judges is ‘‘free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fi re in a theatre and causing panic.” Th is is reaffi rmed in article 13 of the American Convention on Human Right. For this reason, US Supreme Court had ruled again and again that words that are capable of causing psychological injury and triggering violence especially in interpersonal context cannot be protected by the First Amendment. Th e Nigerian state is therefore duty bound to sensitize the populace on the taxonomy and nuances of hate speeches. Everything has to be spelt out in black and white so that the citizenry will rest assured that it is not another Decree no. 4 in disguise or ploy to gag staunch critics. But most importantly, it should be stated that laws are just not enough. Th ey can only bring about what the Norwegian scholar, Johan Galtung, calls negative peace. What about love, mutual respect and cooperation among the citizens across the federation? Th ese values can only be revitalized through institutional rejuvenation that will curb the appalling levels of poverty, unemployment and corruption; diversity in academia and Gandhian spirituality in religion. In this our National Orientation Agency, media organizations, artists (novelists and fi lmmakers), traditional and religious leaders have a greater stake. Bukar writes from Nguru, Yobe State. He can be reached at [email protected]
