The Hate Speech bill
Despite the storm of criticism that has trailed its progress, the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill passed second reading in the Senate yesterday. Last week, the Senate also received a bill that seeks death by hanging for anyone found guilty of hate speech which results in the death of another person. The bill, […]
Despite the storm of criticism that has trailed its progress, the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill passed second reading in the Senate yesterday. Last week, the Senate also received a bill that seeks death by hanging for anyone found guilty of hate speech which results in the death of another person. The bill, sponsored by former Senate spokesperson and Deputy Chief Whip Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, is titled ‘National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches [Establishment, etc] Bill, 2019.’ The Internet Falsehood bill, otherwise known as Social Media bill, was introduced a week earlier.
Section 4 (2) of Sabi’s bill provides that any person found to have committed a hate speech offence shall be liable to life imprisonment and where the act causes any loss of life, the person shall be punished through death by hanging. Also, section 6 (1) 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 to imprisonment for a term not less than five years, or to a fine of not less than N10 million or both.
The bill also ties the fate of individuals in organisations to their colleagues as it states that if a hate speech offence is committed by a body of persons where the body of persons is a corporate body, every director, trustee and officer of that body shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence. The bill defines hate speech as when “a person who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provided, 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 behavior commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person or persons from such an ethnic group in Nigeria.”
As expected, politicians, Civil Society Organisations and individuals have risen against the bill. They warn that it could violate Nigerians’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and that it could be used to harass those exercising their right to free speech. Stung by the criticisms, Senate spokesperson Senator Godiya Akwashiki said it wasn’t the idea of the 9th Senate to use the bill to gag the opposition and dissenting voices. The bill, she said, is solely the idea of its sponsor, Senator Abdullahi. Meanwhile, Abdullahi insists that his proposed legislation is aimed at achieving peace in the country.
Some Nigerians worry that Nigeria does not need to establish an Independent National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches because a Presidential Committee on reform of government agencies had recommended the reduction of statutory agencies from 263 to 161. Moreover, the bill sees hate speech only from the prism of ethnicity. Obviously religion, gender and race, among others, are also prime objects of hate speech and need to be covered in the definition.
The most controversial provision in the bill is the capital punishment. In truth, the bill provides for capital punishment only where hate speech results in murder. Even under current laws, incitement to murder is a capital offence and is also recognized as hate speech under existing laws. There are examples of capital punishment meted out to some people who were convicted of inciting murder in Nigeria. The Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 also has provisions and penalties for hate speech.
The most important concern for now is to provide clear definitions in the bill so as not to create a lacuna that could be abused by government agents or powerful individuals to trample on the rights of perceived enemies. In as much as hate speech is a trending crime in society these days, it should be tackled but the law must safeguard constitutionally guaranteed free speech.