Some lawyers yesterday described hate speech as “a moral issue not constitutional,” while others said it should be treated as a treasonable off ence. Th e News Agency of Nigeria reports that the lawyers were reacting to the federal government’s description of hate speech as an act of terrorism. Bankola Akomolafe, an Abuja-based a legal practitioner said that the ban on hate speech by the federal government was both morally and constitutionally in order.
He described those saying there was nothing like hate speech under Nigerian law as those who do not know the constitution, adding that hate speech was inimical to the unity of the country. Akomolafe said that hate speech could trigger violence, adding that it was the duty of the federal government to provide for security of lives and property for Nigerians, hence the need to ban it.
“You cannot say because the constitution gives you the right to speak and begin to say things that can trigger violence, the right you claim you have can be stopped when it is exercised in breach of others rights. “If your freedom to speak can trigger violence, it is the right of the federal government to stop it; the government is saddle with the responsibility of ensuring peace and unity to protect from internal and external aggression.”
“Th e person making such comment should read the constitution again,” he said. Ebun-olu Adegboruwa, a Lagos-based lawyer in a statement, said he did not agree with the concept of hate speech. According to him, the Constitution in Section 39 has granted an unqualifi ed freedom of expression to every citizen. “If at all any speech has violated anybody’s legal rights at, there is the extant common law remedy of libel actions for damages in civil cases and criminal libel in criminal cases,” he said. He said technology and internet had amplifi ed the impact of terrorists, warmongers, secessionists and peddlers of hate speech.
