Hate Speech Vs Freedom of Speech

Ozekhome, however, registered his displeasure over the monitoring of hate speeches on the social media, arguing that it constitutes an infringement on the constitutional right of Nigerians to freedom of speech.

“Although I detest hate speeches with all my heart and every fibre in my vein, as they are divisive and destructive, I do not subscribe to the monitoring of social media activities by the Nigerian military DHQ, as this constitutes a violent and blatant violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Coming from a clueless and directionless government that has covered its ineptitude with mindless repression, intolerance and allergy to opposition, criticism and plurality of alternative voices, such monitoring would further muzzle the people, especially the opposition. It is reminiscent of the then General Buhari’s Decree 4, which criminalizes truth, if such truth was embarrassing to the government.

“This government makes no pretence of yearning for the dark inglorious days and locust years of military tyranny and brute dictatorship, where the citizens, under War Against Indiscipline, were openly humiliated and flogged on their bare buttocks. May God never bring back such gory days of dehumanization. We don’t need to regulate Social media.

The Freedom of information Act and section 36 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution will deal a death blow to such concept of controlling the social Media,” he noted.

Another fiery legal practitioner and human rights activist, Carol Ajie said the nation’s constitution does not recognise hate speech. She explained that those trying to christen hate speech as terrorism were doing so without any legal backing.

The Lagos-based lawyer said the government’s plan was aimed at suppressing the country’s activist population.

“The Nigerian constitution guarantees freedom of speech. The constitution does not recognise hate speech. So, those trying to create hate speech clause under the Terrorism Act are saying if you speak in a particular way you could be arrested, detained and charged for threatening the corporate existence of Nigeria. There is no provision in the constitution for hate speech. The Terrorism Act is not superior to the constitution.

“Essentially, they want to cower the activist population for the criticisms of their (government) policies and programmes. The government wants to frighten human rights lawyers from critiquing their policies, from pointing out lapses and loopholes in government actions. Essentially, they do not want people to talk down on their government. That must be why they are talking about this nonsense of hate speech.”

Ajie wondered why President Muhammadu Buhari who was one of the greatest beneficiaries of activism in the country would be the one to drive activists underground. “Activism did not start with this (Buhari) regime. Nigeria since independence had activist members of the population, and this present regime is one of the greatest beneficiaries of activism. It actually came to government because activists shut down the PDP; because the PDP was perceived not to be governing well. Having ascended the throne, you cannot kick the ladder with which you climbed. So, if it wasn’t hate speech then, it can’t be hate speech now. And if they say it is hate speech now, we don’t have any other country to participate in. This is our country and we want to be active members of this community by analyzing policies. Where necessary we shall criticize them or commend them or condemn. That is the major work of critics and activists. If what the government wants is to drive opposing views underground, then it is not democracy. We are not in ‘militocracy’, we are in a democracy. And one of the key components of democracy is citizens’ participation through criticisms.”

However, Mr. Chino Obiagwu, Founding Director, Legal Defence and Assistance Project, submitted that freedom of expression is not absolute as it comes with some responsibilities, saying there was nothing wrong with government curtailing hate speech. He declared that whoever indulged in hate speech was committing an offence.