HATE SPEECH BILL: A MISPLACED PRIORITY?
Hate speech Bill: a misplaced priority
-By The Pensmith
The primary duty of the legislature is lawmaking, and in every democratic society, any law made by the legislators should be in the interest and wishes of their citizens. However, once the law made by the legislators is against the yearnings and interests their citizens, then it becomes a misplaced priority.
The 9th Senate on Tuesday, the 12th of November, 2019 proposed death by hanging as the penalty for anyone found guilty of “hate speech” in Nigeria. The bill which is titled, “National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches (Establishment, etc) Bill, 2019”, sponsored by the Deputy Chief Whip, representing Niger North, Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, has scaled through the first reading at the floor of the Senate. The bill which initially was sponsored by the same lawmaker in the 8th senate, sought to establish an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches, with the aim of eliminating “hate speeches, “out of the country”.
According to The Nation publication on November 12, 2019, this is coming in the wake of another proposed controversial law by the same Senate who want to regulate what the Federal Government tagged “the abuse of social media” by Nigerians “with a three-year jail term or N150,000 option of fine or both”, as punishment for offenders.
Some of the punishments for the offenders of hate speech on the ground of ethnicity and race are “a five-year jail term or a fine of not less than N10 million or both…”
Second, “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”. I am sure that this very piece already has earned my pen the stipulated penalty, were the bill in force as you read.
According to the bill’s provision, “…ethnic hatred means hatred against a group if person’s from any ethical group indigenous today Nigeria”.
On segregation, the bill states that: for the purpose of this act, a person who discriminates against another person if on ethnic grounds the person without any lawful justification treats another Nigerian citizen less favourably than he treats or would treat other person from his ethnic or another ethnic group and/or that on grounds of ethnicity a person put another person at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons from other nationality of Nigeria.
“A person also discriminates against another person if, in any circumstances relevant for the purposes referred to in subsection (1) (b), he applies to that person of any provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same race, ethnic or national origins as that other.”
Furthermore, On harassment on the basis of ethnicity, the Bill states: “A person (who) subjects another to harassment on the basis of ethnicity for the purposes of this section where on ethnic grounds, he justifiably engages in a conduct which has the purpose or effect of: a) Violating that other person’s dignity or b) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the person subjected to the harassment.
“Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of this section if, having regard to all circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as saying that effect.
“A person who subjects another to harassment on the basis of ethnicity commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to an imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, or to a fine of not less than Ten million Naira, or to both.”
On Offence of ethnic or racial contempt, the Bill provides that “Any person who knowingly utters words to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than five years, or to a fine of not less than Ten million Naira, or to both.”
On discrimination by way of victimization, the Bill provides that “A person victimizes another if in any circumstance relevant for the purpose of this Act, the person does any act that is injurious to the wellbeing and esteem of another person by U eating the person to less favorably than, in those circumstances, such person treats or would treat other persons, and does so by reason that the person victimized has:
“(a) Made a complaint under this Act; (b) Otherwise done anything under or by reference to this, (c) Given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against any other person under this Act; or (d) By reason that the person who has violated the provision(s) of this Act knows that the persons victimized intend to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done or intend to do, any of them.
“A person who subjects or threatens to subject another person to any detriment because the other person, or a person associated with the other person: (i) has made a complaint against any person; (ii) has brought any other proceedings under this Act against any person; (iii) has given evidence or information, or produced a document, in connection with any proceedings under this Act; (iv) has otherwise done anything in accordance with this Act in relation to any person;
“(v) has contravened a provision of Pan III, unless the allegation is false and was not made in good faith; (vi) has refused to do anything in accordance the allegation is false and was made in good faith; “(b) fails to comply with a notice by the Commission under section 57; (c) hinders or obstructs a Commissioner, member of staff of the Commission 01′ the Secretary in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions under this Act; “(d) uses insulting language towards a Commissioner, member of staff of the Commission or the Secretary when the member Commissioner, Member of staff 01′ Secretary is exercising powers or performing functions under this Act; or “(e) gives any information 01‘ makes any statement to the Commission, the Secretary or a person acting on behalf of the Commission or the Secretary in exercise of powers or the performance of functions under this Act which the person knows is false or misleading in any material particular, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of two million naira or to imprisonment for a term not less than twelve months or both.”
On Offences by body of persons, the Bill said that “In the case of an offence under this Act committed by a body of persons” (a) where the body of persons is a body corporate, cv cry director, trustee and officer of that body corporate shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence; and “(b) where the body of persons is a firm, every partner of that firm shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence”
The objectives and functions of the proposed commission on Hate Speech, according to the Bill are to facilitate and promote a harmonious peaceful co-existence within the people of all ethnic groups indigenous to Nigeria and more importantly to achieve this objective by ensuring the elimination of all forms of hate speeches in Nigeria, and to advise the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on all aspects thereof.
It added that without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Commission shall:
“Promote the elimination of all forms of hate speeches against any person(s) or ethnic group indigenous to Nigeria. “Discourage persons, institutions, political parties and associations from advocating or promoting discrimination or discriminatory practices through the use of hate speeches.
“Promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance of diversity in all aspects of national life and encourage full participation by all ethnic communities in social, economic, cultural and political life of other communities; “Plan, supervise, co-ordinate and promote educational and training programs to create public awareness, support and advancement of peace and harmony among ethnic communities and racial groups; “Promote respect for religions, cultural, linguistic and other forms of diversity in a plural society; “Promote equal access and enjoyment by persons of all ethnic communities and racial groups to public or other services and facilities provided by the Government; “Promote arbitration, conciliation, mediation and similar forms of dispute resolution mechanisms in order to secure and enhance ethnic and racial harmony and peace; “Investigate complaints of ethnic or racial discrimination and make recommendation to the Attorney-General, the Human Rights Commission or any other relevant authority on the remedial measures to be taken where such complaints are valid.”
The Commission shall also: “Investigate on its own accord or on request from any institution, office, or person any issue affecting ethnic and racial relations; “Identify and analyze factors inhibiting the attainment of harmonious relations between ethnic communities, particularly barriers to the participation of any ethnic community in social, economic, commercial, financial, cultural and political endeavours, and recommend to the Government and any other relevant public or private body how these factors should be overcome; “Determine strategic priorities in all the socio -economic political and development policies of the Government impacting on ethnic relations and advise on their implementation; “Recommend to the Government criteria for deciding whether any public office or officer has committed acts of discrimination on the ground of ethnicity or race; “Monitor and review all legislation and all administrative acts relating to or having implication for ethnic or race relations and, from time to time, prepare and submit to the Government proposals for revision of such legislation and administrative acts;
“Initiate, lobby for and advocate for policy, legal or administrative reforms on issues affecting ethnic relations; “Monitor and make recommendations to the government and other relevant public and private sector bodies on factors inhibiting the development and harmonious relations between ethnic groups and on barriers to the participation of all ethnic groups in the social, economic, commercial, financial, cultural and political life of the people;
“Undertake research and studies and make recommendations to the Government on any issue relating to ethnic affairs including whether ethnic relations are improving; “Make recommendations to the Government on any issue relating to ethnic affairs including whether ethnic relations are improving; “Monitor and report annually to the Nation Assembly the status and success of implementation of its recommendations; “Issue notices directing person, persons or institutions involve in actions or conduct amounting to violations on the basis of ethnicity or race to stop such actions or conduct within a given period; and “Do all other acts and things as may be necessary to facilitate the efficient discharge of its functions.”
Following this development, Nigerians have been reacting to the proposed bill as regarding its irrelevance to the nation. Most of them accused the government and the lawmakers of beating about the bush, instead of addressing pressing needs of citizens.
It is true that the hollowed chambers have raised the issue of “hatred” based on ethnicity, and strives to promote harmonious co-existing among the diverse ethnic groups in the country. However, there are major issues that threaten our national unity more than the so-called “hate speech”. The question that begs for answer is: What significant is the bill towards addressing some of the major challenges bedeviling the Nigerian state? By seeking to tackle “hate speeches”, and ignore key issues such as corruption, massive youth unemployment and among others, isn’t the Buhari led administration trying to undermine the civil liberty and fundamental right of citizens to freedom of speech and right to private opinions?
The important question which the government should be asking itself is what needs to be done to tackle mass poverty, unemployment, poor infrastructure, failing standard of education, and the current menace of insecurity, among others. It is not surprising that a lot of Nigerians have attacked the Senate over this misplacement of priorities, by
Other questions which the hallowed chamber has failed to ask itself are: What is the penalty for politicians who loot billions of Naira, meant for the building schools, roads, and other basic infrastructure deficit? Where is the law that prescribes death penalty for politicians who rig elections, pay jobless youths to steal ballot boxes during elections; what has the law done to those who lead thugs into the national assembly to steal the Senate mace? Why can’t the lawmakers enact a law that would punish killer herdsmen, kidnappers, and those who yesterday were poor but after one day in office as governors, enrich themselves with workers’ salaries and pension gratuities? Where is the law that would send some state Governors who fail to pay workers ‘salaries?
Instead of focusing on the myriad of pressing issues like corruption, unemployment, poverty and insecurity, the hallowed chambers has picked on regulating the social life of citizens by proposing to censor the use of social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram Twitter, among others.
One of the major indices for measuring a democratic society is press freedom, and the right of citizens to exercise their freedom of speech on issues that bother them. Constructive criticism is an important feature of every democratic, hence the government should not mistake corrective speeches for hate speeches. Neither should they expect people who elected them to power to fold their arms and seal their lips if things are going wrong.
The right to freedom of speech is not just enshrined in the constitution of the land but it’s a fundamental right of citizens as human being. Hence it must not be scuttled as the government is trying to do. By arresting and intimidating citizens who criticize their policies, the government is undermining these democratic tenets and rights of citizens. Forceful clamp down on social media users and the proposed death penalty for anyone found guilty of hate speeches are the least of our challenges as a nation.
One of the major tools which was used to spread their “Change “propaganda was the social media If truth be told, the current APC led government was frontal in the criticism of the Goodluck Jonathan’s administration. Yet nobody accused them of hate speeches. It is on record that President Buhari in an interview with the Vanguard of May 15th, 2015 was quoted as saying that “if what happened in 20011(allegedly referring to igging) should happen in 2015, by the grace og God, the dogs n the baboons would all be soaked in blood”. So if they utilized the social media to bring down a government which they thought was bad, why are they suddenly bothered regulating the use of social media? Or could I be that the government is afraid of admitting the fact that Nigerians are fed up with their lies clad in the garment of fake political mantras.
In our 21st century cyberspace world where the drive towards the acquisition of knowledge, and information, and the need to form social bonds and interactions with people from across different cultures of the worldwide, using social media platforms, the government should not have been fussing over how it want to checkmate the way people conduct themselves on social media.
It is true that some social media users abuse the platforms. Nevertheless, The Goodluck government signed the Freedom of Information Bill into law on May 28th, 2011 because it understood how indispensable access to information, knowledge and intercontinental interaction are a necessary ingredient in the soup of development.
Therefore if there is anything called hate speech, the government ought to have buried itself in the grave of shame because some people groups like the Meyatti Allah Cattle Breeders Association have not just utter hate speeches but carried pout attacks on innocent citizens and got away with it. The open opposition of the Anti-open Grazing Law enact by the Benue State House of Assembly is a good example. So instead of making noise about false speech, the government should direct its attention to pressing issues that are bedeviling the entire country.
