What Nigerians say about hate speech, social media bills

Despite explanations by the Federal Government, especially the Senate and the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the controversial hate speech and social media regulation bills have triggered diverse reactions among Nigerians; Daily Trust on Sunday reports. On November 12, the Senate reintroduced a bill that seeks to penalise persons found guilty of […]

Despite explanations by the Federal Government, especially the Senate and the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the controversial hate speech and social media regulation bills have triggered diverse reactions among Nigerians; Daily Trust on Sunday reports.

On November 12, the Senate reintroduced a bill that seeks to penalise persons found guilty of hate speech.

The bill for the establishment of a National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech, sponsored by Deputy Chief Whip Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, was first introduced in March 2018. It, however, did not pass the third reading.

While the hate speech bill is sponsored by Senator Abdullahi, that of the social media is sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa. The two bills have passed second reading in the Senate.

The reintroduction of this bill comes one week after the Senate reintroduced a bill that will regulate the use of social media. It also comes about a month after President Muhammadu Buhari threatened to take a “firm and decisive action” against promoters of hate speech and other divisive materials on the internet.

Over the years, hate speech and social media bills have been generating lots of controversy in the country.

The social media bill prescribes a three-year jail term, upon conviction, for anybody or group of persons who sent false text messages or post false messages on the social media against another person, while the hate speech bill prescribes death penalty for any person found guilty of any form of hate speech that results in the death of another person. It also seeks the establishment of an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches.

For offences like harassment on grounds of ethnicity or race, the offender shall be sentenced to “not less than five years in jail or a fine of not less than N10million, or both.

Criticising the hate speech bill, the spokesman of the Senate, Godiya Akwashiki said it was not sponsored by the Senate; hence it is a private bill. He, however, said it would be considered on its merit..

The sponsor of the bill, however, said he was not discouraged, insisting that he would not pursue it to its logical conclusion.

Another controversy was also generated when members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) said the bill seeking prohibition of hate speech was a ploy by President Muhammadu Buhari to pursue a third term agenda. But it was clarified that the bill had nothing to do with the alleged third term agenda of President Buhari.

“The anti-hate speech bill has nothing to do with any hidden agenda from the executive. The Senate will apply all its legislative mechanisms in deciding its usefulness for Nigerians,” he Akwashiki said.

The sponsor, Senator Abdullahi, said he reintroduced the bill because hate speech was posing a threat to the country’s corporate existence.

“Many people have turned me into a monster, but I am not moved,” he said, adding that to see the bill as a ploy to give Buhari a third term is laughable.

He also claimed that he had been receiving threatening messages after the first reading of the bill.

The social media bill

The social media bill has also passed the second reading despite Nigerians’ outcry to stop its progress.

Titled, “Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation 2019,” the bill is seeking to regulate Nigeria’s social media space.

Despite the criticism it attracted when it was first introduced to the upper legislative chamber of the National Assembly, on Wednesday, November 20, 2019, the bill passed the second reading with the support of majority of the lawmakers. Only one lawmaker, Senator Chimaroke Nnamani, opposed the bill.

During the debate, Nnamani argued that already, there’s a legislation that addresses internet falsehood in the country, namely the Cyber Crimes Act.

“I do not only oppose this bill, I condemn it in its entirety. Based on our constitution, there is freedom of information and freedom of speech. There is a cyber crime act that deals with this issue. There are also laws that deal with false information, libel, slander and so on. Yes, fake news has done a lot in America and other countries, but they have not brought any law to deal with it. I, therefore, oppose this bill,” Nnamani said.

The Red Chamber directed its committee on judiciary to work on the bill and return it in four weeks.

UN, UK reject death penalty for hate speech

The United Nations (UN) and the United Kingdom (UK) have opposed the death penalty clause in the proposed National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill.

The UN described the death penalty as barbaric, noting that its inclusion in the bill was unacceptable.

The spokesman of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Mr. Olusola Macaulay, in a media interview, said the global body would not support the bill, noting that a UNESCO advocacy group, Media and Information Literacy Coalition, would soon meet with the National Assembly over the proposed legislation.

He said, “We are trying to pay an advocacy visit to the government and do some lobbying. There is a coalition working already, which was formed with the support of UNESCO.

The British government said it supported the right of individuals to express opinions and peacefully challenge the authority as an essential part of a free and open society, noting that it was following discussions around the proposed legislation closely.

In a statement, the UK said while it took a strong stand against hate speech, which could incite violence and damage relationships within the society, it supports “the right of individuals to express opinions and peacefully challenge the authority as an essential part of a free and open society.”

The statement was signed by the senior press and public affairs officer, British High Commission, Abuja, Chris Ogunmodede.

Governors react

Commenting on the hate speech bill, the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) advised the National Assembly to hold public hearing on it to ensure that views of Nigerians are captured in the passage of the bill.

The vice chairman of the NGF, Governor Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State said, “I am not sure I have heard any governor come out to say he is in support of death penalty for hate speech. I believe the National Assembly should hold a public hearing on that bill so that due process of lawmaking is followed and views of Nigerians, not just governors, will be well captured. They should respect the views of Nigerians in whatever may be the direction of the debate and the eventual passage or otherwise of that bill,” Tambuwal said.

NUJ, CSOs, Atiku, others oppose bills

The Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) also opposed provisions of the two bills. The national president of the NUJ, Mr. Chris Isiguzo, who led a delegation of the union leaders on a courtesy visit to the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said the bills, especially the hate speech bill, could be used to silence the media and perceived political opponents if ultimately passed.

The convener, Free Nigeria Movement (FNM), Mr. Raphael Adebayo, also said his organisation would mobilise Nigerians to resist the proposed anti-hate speech bill. He described the planned anti-hate speech commission as an attempt to muzzle Nigerians and deprive them of their rights.

Also, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said the bill was an abuse of the legislative process, adding that it would violate Nigerians’ constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. According to him, it was prudent to build upon the tolerance inherited from those years and not shrink the democratic space to satisfy personal and group interests.

Also, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) said the bill could not be justified in a democracy.

In a statement by its national publicity secretary, Mr. Kunle Edun, the NBA cautioned the Senate to “tread carefully” with the bill.

It also reminded the Senate that section 39(3) of the constitution made it mandatory that no law could abrogate the rights of Nigerians to exercise their right to freedom of speech.

Also, the convener of Good Governance Team (GGT), Nigeria, Tunde Salman, said government had “surreptitiously started regulating the social media as evident in the increasing harassment of bloggers and other social media activists for one flimsy excuse or another.”

Similarly, the lead director, Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), Eze Onyekpere, said the move to regulate the social media only further confirmed that the present government lacked agenda for the welfare of the people.

Furthermore, the director, Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Idayat Hassan, alleged that regulating the social media “is another move by the All Progressives Congress (APC) government to clamp down on free speech.

“There is no evidence to suggest that regulation or whatever name they call it will reduce fake news or hate speech,” she said.

The executive director, YIAGA-AFRICA, Samson Itodo, said it was unfortunate that the government which benefitted from the social media “is turning around to regulate the same tool citizens have for holding government to account.”

“Fake news and disinformation are a global phenomenon that needs to be addressed. Other nations did not deal with fake news by regulating social media or limiting free speech,” he said.

But the Minority Leader of the Senate, Enyinnaya Abaribe, said the lawmakers would not pass any law that would affect the rights of Nigerians.

The Minister of Information and Culture, however, said there’s no going back on the plan by the government to regulate the social media in Nigeria.

“People are using traditional media to criticise the administration. Why not? This is a democracy and there should be a plurality of opinions. But our concern has to do with the abuse of the social media by those who are bent on spreading fake news and hate speech, and the dangers inherent in that are for our national peace and unity. We have no hidden agenda.

“No responsible government will sit by and allow fake news and hate speech to dominate its media space,” Lai Mohammed said.