Hate Speech Law Proposal in Nigeria: When Beheading is the Antidote for a Headache

Nigeria's National Assembly. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.  

The Nigerian Senate, through the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Information, Alhaji Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, recently announced that it was proposing a law that would seek the death penalty for perpetrators of hate speech. Skeptics thought that the legislative body was again embarking on a familiar, self-serving endeavor to further impunity in the country. Some may laugh at this proposal, but it is very shocking and alarming that such a proposal is being made in a growing democracy like Nigeria, as well as at a time when other countries across the world are making efforts to roll back the use of the death penalty. Merely proposing such legislation speaks volumes to the current state of the Nigerian Senate. Especially in the context of the recent corruption scandal, in which members of the legislature were found illegally pocketing about USD$50,000 that they allotted to themselves monthly, in a country where 65 percent of the population survives on less than one dollar a day amidst pervasive poverty.

While it is true that hate speech is antithetical to democracy, peacebuilding, and development, a death penalty punishment does not fit into the values and tenets of freedom and liberty that are cherished in a democratic environment. Moreover, the proposed law is dangerous considering that hate speech offenses are often difficult to establish, while the interpretation of hate speech could be subjective and could be hazy in legal jargon. Particularly in Nigeria, where the relationship between the mass media, government critics, and the political class is not always congenial, the proposed legislation could be used by politicians to intimidate the media, and prevent it from performing its roles as watchdogs against the excesses of the ruling elites. Prof. Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian Nobel Laureate for Literature, recently criticized the proposed law, stating that the legislators proposed such legislation as a means to prevent political criticism of their work. Another belief surrounding the law is that it is being created by the government to fight terrorism. This indication was given by the Nigerian Vice-President, Yemi Osinbajo during a chat with the media, where he stated that the hate speech law is going to be used to stem terrorism in Nigeria. This is dangerous because innocent people could be labeled as terrorists if they make statements that government interprets as hate speech.

The Nigerian Cybercrime Act enacted in 2015 by the National Assembly provides a good case study of how the political class and the security apparatus could misuse this proposed hate speech law to stifle free expression and public criticism. The cyber law has been used to humiliate bloggers and threaten online critics to refrain from criticizing the government and members of the National Assembly in Nigeria. Recently, some social media bloggers were arrested and detained unjustly for days on the order of some security chiefs because they criticized a state governor. None of the bloggers have been prosecuted and none have been indicted as of yet. In addition, no compensation has been awarded to those who were unjustly arrested and detained. This practice has attracted the attention of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and local media rights organizations, such as the International Press Center (IPC) in Lagos, who have issued statements criticizing the Nigerian Police and the State Security Services, DSS, for constantly threatening and harassing journalists under the guise of the cybercrime law. In an environment where security men regularly harass journalists, the consequences of enacting hate speech law that carries a death penalty could, therefore, only be imagined.

So far, it appears that the media in Nigeria and civil society organizations have not fully realized the potential dangers of the proposed hate speech law due to inadequate media coverage surrounding the proposed legislation. Even though the proposed law has yet to be debated on the floor of the National Assembly, it is the responsibility of the media to report on it in order to ensure that the Nigerian public and the international community inform legislators that such law should not even be introduced on the floor of the assembly, much less be debated.

Recommendations

By now, one would have expected the Nigerian Union of Journalists, free expression advocacy and civil society organizations, and relevant international bodies to come up with strategies to stop the Nigerian Senate from passing this proposed bill. Yet, so far, such attempt has yet to happen.

I do not recommend legal actions to target hate speech due to its likely negative implications for civil rights and freedom of expression. In most cases, there is a very thin line separating hate speech from legitimate speech. Moreover, arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes hate speech by security and political elites are dangerous. Rather than enacting a draconian law to address the problem of hate speech, the Nigerian National Assembly could consider setting up a national commission consisting of public servants, media representatives, and civil society members that will set the parameters for identifying hate speech and establish modalities for monitoring and preventing it. The commission could also consider determining penalties for infringements and creating mechanisms for enforcement. The government should consider supporting the commission through adequate budgetary allocation and reinforcing its penal power through support from law enforcement. The government would do well to ensure that the commission is insulated from political interference, allowing it to be independent and unbiased.

Individual and corporate philanthropists should consider supporting civil society organizations and non-profits that work on educating the public on the negative consequences of hate messages, in order to inoculate them against it. Media organizations should consider embodying social responsibility by adhering to stricter editing of media content in order to prevent hate messages. Media organizations would do well to provide appropriate training to editorial staff to help with detecting and removing hate messages from media content. Journalists' unions and associations should consider developing appropriate rules and sanctions for members who infringe on hate speech rules. Online bloggers, contributors, and managers of social media accounts should consider better educating themselves and other contributors on hate messages, and take preventive actions against hate messages in their social media content.

Since hate speech is perpetrated more during election periods in Nigeria, the National Electoral Commission would do well to strengthen sections of the electoral laws to enumerate what constitutes hate speech during election campaigns. Penalty measures should also be strengthened to discourage infringements. Election monitoring bodies and individuals should consider paying close attention to the media and campaign messages during elections in order to identify hate speech infringements.

Tackling and preventing hate speech is the responsibility of all institutions and segments of society, and should not be construed as the responsibility of the government alone. Therefore, all relevant social institutions should be mobilized in the fight against hate speech.

Olusola Isola is a Southern Voices Network Scholar for Peacebuilding for the Spring 2018 term. He is a Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies at the University of Ibadan in Ibadan, Nigeria, a member organization of the Southern Voices Network for Peacebuilding.