A bill seeking to establish an ‘Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches’ is being processed by the Senate but the legislation has attracted condemnation from members of the public. LEKE BAIYEWU examines the issues
“There are punitive measures such as life imprisonment. And if there is any loss of life, the person would be punished with death by hanging,” said Senator Aliyu Sabi-Abdullahi, who is sponsoring the controversial ‘Hate Speech Bill.’
Sabi-Abdullahi is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs and represents the Niger North Senatorial District in the Senate. His bill is seeking the establishment of an agency to be known as the ‘Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches’.
Under the proposed law, an offence, such as harassment on the grounds of ethnicity or racial contempt would attract “not less than a five-year jail term or a fine of not less than N10m or both.”
Sabi-Abdullahi, in an interview with our correspondent after the bill passed the first reading at the Senate and it had started generating public outcry, expressed his strong conviction that what he was proposing would be like the long-awaited antidote to provocative comments and verbal assaults in Nigeria’s public sphere.
According to the sponsor, the move is to correct the inefficiency of existing laws, which he believes have failed to prevent speech-inspired violence and crisis.
Sabi-Abdullahi said the existing laws on defamation, sedition, public conduct, among others, had failed to check hateful speeches being made by Nigerians.
The senator explained that the proposed commission would mediate and reconcile aggrieved sides involved in a clash caused by hate speech, while irreconcilable differences between the parties would be recommended for prosecution at the Federal High Court.
To buttress his point, Sabi-Abdullahi added said he came up with the idea of ‘Hate Speech Bill’ following his interest in the phenomenon. The senator stated, “I looked at the rate at which people say things anyhow just to get at another person.
“What we are saying here is that today, the various divisions within our country, from religious to ethnic and other societal strata, try to distinguish themselves from others. When people started talking about hate speech, it was hate speech that led to the genocide in Rwanda. When you look at the World War II, it was the type of speeches being made that led to some people being tagged with certain things, and they were put forward for extermination and all kinds of inhuman treatment.”
Critics of the bill paid more attention to two issues: what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and why capital punishment. There are observers who have insisted that the existing laws are strong enough to discourage hateful speeches, if at all any speech can be categorised as such.
When the bill gets to the second reading stage, it would be subjected to a debate by members of the Senate. But before then, criticisms are already coming from the chamber. For instance, the lawmaker representing Kaduna Central Senatorial District, Senator Shehu Sani, had gone to the social media to express his reservations on the Hate Speech Bill. He declared that gagging free speech must be prevented.
Sani had said, “Most people in power are intolerant of criticism and allergic to dissent to be trusted with a capital punishment for hate speech. The law against hate speech will be used against free speech. Many critics and social media enthusiasts will end up in the gallows. Our condemned cells in the prisons will be filled with bloggers, critics and perceived political opponents.
“We must fight hate speech. Hate speech is a real threat to peace, unity and order of a nation but we must protect free speech. Free speech is the shield of the oppressed. When you have state police and you have capital punishment for hate speech, you will have tyranny and terror as a state policy. People in power should think twice about what they do with power as, someday, they will be out of power.”
The Hate Speech Bill was introduced some weeks after the Federal Government announced that it had begun to monitor posts by prominent persons and opinion leaders on the Internet, as one of the measures to check inciting comments online.
Specifically, the Minister of Defence, Mansur Dan-Ali, in January, 2018, directed the nation’s security agencies to tackle those propagating hate speeches, especially through the social media. He said special attention should be given to notable Nigerians while tackling the menace.
Earlier in August 2017, it was announced that that hate speech, anti-government and anti-security comments online were being monitored for information by the Nigerian military.
The Director of Defence Information, Major General John Enenche, who made the revelation on Channels Television’s News at 10, had said the move became necessary in the light of troubling activities and misinformation capable of jeopardising the unity of the country.
Enenche had made the comment less than 48 hours after President Muhammadu Buhari said, in his national broadcast, that some of the discussions on social media in his absence crossed the line and left him distressed.
He had said, “In the military, we are now taking on it more seriously than ever. We have our strategic media centres that monitor the social media to be able to sieve out and react to all the ones that will be anti-government, be anti-military, (and) be anti-security. We tackle them appropriately with appropriate responses.”
It is not the first time that the National Assembly has made attempts to regulate civic activities. But the previous attempts had failed.
Sometime in 2015, the Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah, had sponsored what was called the ‘Frivolous Petitions Bill’, which was tagged by the populace as the ‘Anti-Social Media Bill.’ The bill had passed second reading on the floor of both chambers of the National Assembly, while the Senate had fixed its public hearing for March 2016.
The massive criticisms that followed the bill had forced Senate President Bukola Saraki to declare that Section 4 of the controversial bill would not see the light of day. While delivering the keynote address at the State Craft Masterclass series at the Social Media Week, held in Lagos, Saraki had emphasised the growing influence of social media users in Nigeria’s political environment. He had rather encouraged the audience to continue to contribute to the development of Nigeria through their dialogue and debate on social media.
“Without the involvement of social media, there is no way that we would have moved from a non-performing government because now, everything is out in the open unlike years ago,” he added.
Another example of such controversial bills is one currently in the House of Representatives, seeking to regulate the activities of non-governmental organisations. It has generated similar condemnation from the public, especially from the civil society organisations who would bear the brunt of the legislation should it be passed.
Speaking on the bill, President Women Arise, and the Centre for Change, Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin, said it was an attempt to give more power to the political elite and further stifle the common people. She therefore called for its outright rejection.
The activist said, “It is more of an attempt by a few members of the ruling elite to seek extra arbitrary power to stifle the people further of their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression, speech and right to their liberty.
“If you look critically at the intent and purpose of this bill, you will realise that it is being targeted at the ordinary people and certain opposition elements in the country. Also instructive is the fact that there have been several laws in the country that cover offences which this new bill seeks to purportedly address. Therefore, it should be rejected by all Nigerians.
“My advice is that the Senate should focus on more pressing national issues that require more commitment from the National Assembly, which are of importance to the security and welfare of the Nigerian people, which is presently facing several obstacles. Matters of the ordinary people should be prioritised, while the bill is thrown into the trash bin.”
Also, the Executive Secretary of the Civil Liberties Organisation, Mr. Ibuchukwu Ezike, said there was the need to get a universally acceptable definition of ‘hate speech.’
The CLO secretary added, “I don’t know what they mean by hate speech. Is it that if you say I am a thief, I cannot say you are an adulterer? Hate speech is relative. I don’t think hate speech is made when people are quarrelling. Is it when somebody is brought to public opprobrium or ridicule, which is already called character assassination?”
Ezike dismissed the claim by Sabi-Abdullahi that the existing laws had failed to check hateful speech makers. He said there was no assurance that the proposed commission would not fail to fulfil its mandate, stating that the issue had always been poor implementation of laws.
In his own reaction, the Executive Chairman of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, Mr. Adetokunbo Mumuni, said the Criminal and Penal Codes had enough provisions to address the problems which the bill seeks to resolve. He believed the implementation of the laws had always been the problem.
Mumuni also stated that the definition of hate speech would depend on the opinion of the sponsor of the bill.
He added, “The problem of Nigeria is not about making laws, it is about the implementation and enforcement of the laws when they are made. There are a lot of laws already, which cover what they are proposing in the new legislation. A lot of provisions exist in the Criminal and Penal Codes that cover all these things. The question to ask is, how effectively have those ones been enforced?”
Also, the President of the Arewa Youths Consultative Forum, Mr. Yerima Shettima, urged the sponsor of the bill and the Senate to make laws that would prescribe death or life jail for corrupt public officials. According to him, corruption is a bigger problem in Nigeria.
Shettima stated, “How can you jail somebody who made hateful speech for life, when somebody, who looted billions and destroy the destiny of people, goes free?
“There should be a law that would target the corrupt politicians who are parading themselves on the seats of power. They should be hung or face the firing squad if they are found culpable under such law.”
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: theeditor@punchng.com
source http://punchng.com/death-for-hate-speech-ruthless-legislation-battles-contrary-opinions/
No comments:
Post a Comment