Anti-hate speech bill: Catastrophic

Initially, it wasn’t my intention to air my dissenting view with respect to the anti-hate speech bill, but later, after the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Muhammad, called for constructive debates and criticisms of the bill, I quickly rescinded my previous decision. To be honest, to tame and curb hate speech is a welcome […]

Initially, it wasn’t my intention to air my dissenting view with respect to the anti-hate speech bill, but later, after the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Muhammad, called for constructive debates and criticisms of the bill, I quickly rescinded my previous decision.

To be honest, to tame and curb hate speech is a welcome idea which should be supported by all and sundry, irrespective of party affiliation. Because under normal circumstances, no one of conscience will reject any move to tame this hydra-headed monster of hate-speech, which is capable of inciting violence with resultant effects of losing innocent lives, injury, or lost of property.

The crux of the matter is the emerging social media trend which comes with its implications, with people making inflammatory remarks that can degenerate or incite public disturbance. Therefore, but for fear of being used to victimize, hound opposing opponents, the proposed bill to stop hate-speech is quite impressive.

Additionally, there’s the fear that some sections of the anti-hate speech bill might be used to suppress freedom of expression. While Section 4(39) of the constitution has given perfect rights for Nigerians to express themselves. Hence, my reason to advise for the need to fine-tune the bill to go in tandem with the Nigerian Constitution. Although I know, when the bill reaches the second and third reading, other considerations might be taken to soften the laws. But before then, pardon me if I erred, but despite these weaknesses, I can manage to say, some constitutional gurus opined that the bill is an outright contradiction with section 4 (39) of the constitution. Any action for the implementation of the bill might be a breach of that fundamental section. Consequently, I don’t think there is any reason to reintroduce this bill with these stiffer measures, since it previously suffered wide condemnations from the public. To be blunt, I’m fully apprehensive with punishments espoused in the sections of the hate-speech bill. Again, as the bill scaled through first reading, I must say, the punishments proposed in the bill which seeks to establish a federal agency to check hate-speech is harsh, very severe, unacceptable in a civil and democratic government. As pro-poor, I must wonder, what guarantee do we have that the bill will not be used as a ploy to victimize innocent citizens? Though I believe, the measures might produce quick results in controlling the problem, but the draconian measures taken by the Senate to arrest the problem is too severe, archaic, medieval. Therefore, I urge the federal government to either be lenient with the punishments or else, abandoned the entire law. Implementing it with its current status might blossom into another confusio.

Abbas Datti, Kano   [email protected]