Other Set of Media Reports on OneVOICE National Conference on Hate Speech

Home » news » Hate Speech Bill: OneVoice Rejects Death Penalty, Urges Restraints

OneVOICE

Hate Speech Bill: OneVoice Rejects Death Penalty, Urges Restraints

April 13, 2018

… Says there exists sufficient laws to take care of hate speech in the country

IT NEWS NIGERIA:
OneVOICE Coalition, an organization of select non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Nigeria has announced that it rejects death penalty in totality as contained in the  Hate Speech Bill before National Assembly as there exists sufficient extant laws that take care of bad utterances in the country.

In a Media Conference Themed: “Freedom of Expression and the Combat of Hate Speech in Nigeria” yesterday in Lagos, The Coalition agree that  making laws to prohibit hate speeches is like increasing funding for police and army to fight crime and quell uprising without addressing the causes of increase in crimes and tension.
President, Committee for Defense of Human Rights (CDHR), Comrade (Barr) Malachy Ugwummadu said in a passionate speech that “often at odds with each other issues, the executive arm and the National Assembly have, however, recently found a common ground in pursuing a draconian legislation on “hate speech”. In this, they clearly intend to surpass the colonial overlords, successive military regimes and the world’s most brutral dictatorships in legal savagery. Nigerians should for once exercise their rights to resist blatant oppression by a degenerate political class”

He explained that Hate Speech Bill did not appear on the website of the Nigerian Senate. The idea of hiding the bill and an attempt to pass it secretly without public participation speaks volume of government intensions.”
Ugwummadu noted that there are a number of other legislations that can take care of issues of hate speech. We have defamation laws, we have cybercrime prohibition Act. Laws that censor Broadcasts have prohibition for hate speech.
speaking on the topic: Hate Speech And The Right To Freedom Of Expression In Democratic Governance: The Legal Pespectives, Ugwummadu said

“Government should strengthen the institutions of democracy. We reject hate speech bill and reject death penalty. Keeping hate speech bill secrete from the public render it illegal.”

“By far more than the foregoing observations and recommendations for stemming the ever disturbing incidences of hate speech, in any society, is the overriding imperatives of dealing with the socio-economic and cultural conditions that dehumanize people of any nation to believe that resort to ethnic and clannish considerations other than merit, content and competences guarrantee them better opportunities to engage in a heterogeneous society like ours”, he added.

Director, International Press Centre (IPC), Lanre Arogundade said On the surface, it might be argued that the hate speech bill before the Senate seeks to check the excesses of those who may want to promote intra and inter ethnic ill feelings as well as help to check the menace of killings in the country.

He argue that Nigeria already has a plethora of laws – against defamation, against libel,  – that can be invoked against purveyors of hate speech, adding that a legislation that will scare citizens away from calling a spade a spade when it comes to bad governance, anti-people’s policies is not in the best interest of the country.
As regards way forward, Arogundade said  “what the country needs today is engagement by multiple stakeholders to examine effective measures to address hate speech”.

In  a Keynote Address on the ‘Hate Speech Bill as a National Embarrassment’ earlier, Executive Director, IAP and Chair, OneVoice Media Committee, Pastor Adedeji Adeleye said there is a debate that Hate Speech Bill when passed into law could be misused by politicians and political office holders in government to hunt down opposition, and critical civil society’s non-state actors.
According to him, “in other words, the debate is now over freedom of speech or expression, hate speech and hate speech law. Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” will eventually be used to silence critics. The second is that there exists sufficient Nigerian extant laws that could take care of hate speech in the country with little amendment here and there. Therefore, a hate speech law is unnecessary.”

OneVOICE Coalition, an organization of select non-governmental organizations in Nigeria is implementing its mandate as a voice and accountability initiative in organizing this Media Forum. It said it has become critically important to contextualize Hate Speech and Democratic Governance in Nigeria. If the recent bill by the Nigerian Senate is passed into law, all hate speech offenders shall die by hanging upon conviction. Mover of the bill, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, Senate Media & Public Affairs Committee Chairman told lawmakers at a plenary on Wednesday, February 28, 2018, that the legislation was as a result of the growing concerns over the spate of violence and hate speeches in the country. The bill also seeks to establish an ‘Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches’, saddled with the responsibility of enforcing hate speech laws across the country, eliminating the menace and advising the federal government. Underpinning this however is the fact that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said it has received 783 petitions on hate speech, which should be worrisome to every right thinking Nigerian. Because as we move towards 2019 general elections the situation is more likely to exacerbate instead of ameliorate.
Participants at the forum included prominent non-governmental and civil society organizations, academics and members of the media.

Home 2 News 2 OneVoice and Stakeholders Slam Nigeria’s Secret Hate Speech Bill

OneVoice and Stakeholders Slam Nigeria’s Secret Hate Speech Bill

By Ajibola Abayomi,
April 13, 2018.

Senate President, Bukola Saraki

OneVoice, a right group and other participants at its media parley tagged “freedom of expression and combat of hate speech in Nigeria” held in Lagos on Thursday have picked hole in the hate speech bill before the Senate.
They condemned the manner in which the Senate shielded the progress being made on the bill which attracted a death penalty  and classified it as undue top most secret detrimental to the public.
The event was organized by OneVoice in conjunction with HURILAWS and National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Speakers at forum agreed that while it was necessary to curtail any act or speech aimed at causing public disorder or threat to life of the citizens,  noted that existing laws and the constitution have made sufficient provision for rules to check hate speech.
Speaking, Pastor Adedeji Adeleye, the Chairman of OneVoice Media Committee and the Executive Director, Independent Advocacy Project (IAP) said Nigerians should not negotiate their right to freedom of speech or expression.
His words: “The Bill on Hate Speech before the National Assembly is an embarrassment. Leaders in government seem to revel in taking decisions in moments of emotional flourishes and consequently often fail to soberly reflect on possible unintended consequences of their actions.
“The first challenge the Hate Speech Bill will face is determining what constitutes hate speech. One definition of hate speech is that it is any speech that employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize others on the bases of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. In other words, it could be a speech which attacks a person or group or ethnic people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or disability.
“In other words, the debate is now over freedom of speech or expression, hate speech and hate speech law. Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” will eventually be used to silence critics. The second is that there exists sufficient Nigerian extant laws that could take care of hate speech in the country with little amendment here and there. Therefore, a hate speech law is unnecessary.”
The activist added that:“While there are concerns about the challenge that Hate speech could pose to both the electoral process and public disclosure, the ‘Hate Speech Bill’ by the National Assembly which carries a death penalty clause is certainly not the right answer. NASS does not need to criminalize hate speech with death penalty.
Also Professor Lai Oso, the Dean, School of Communications, Lagos State University (LASU) Ojo, cited lack of adequate synergy between government policies and academic research as the bane social and economic order in the nation.
According to him, government had not taken enough advantage of the knowledge base at the academic environment to improve its policy trust.
He submitted that the current hate speech bill lacks the needed input to stand the test of time nothing that the bill sought to protect the government against the governed.
Barrister Malachy Ugwummadu, the President Committee for Defense of Human Rights (CDHR) faulted the procedure adopted by the Senate on the bill describing the death sentence attached to it as obsolete.
According to him, it was like the senate was working towards an answer by deliberately keeping the bill from the public glare. He lamented the absence of the bill on the website of the senate.
The legal practitioner averred that: “Good governance may be impeded by the blight of corruption, which disrupts the free flow of information, undermines accountability for decisions and discourages greater participation in the decision-making process. Ensuring the right to press freedom around the world, therefore, should be regarded as a priority.
“The media could employ its strength of mass mobilization, especially through the instrumentality of the digital or online platform, to impress on elected leaders at all levels of government that public office is public trust.”
“Even the extant bill under review in the traditional but disingenuous practices of “copy and paste” has fallen into the same error of repetition in that S. 27 (2) of the proposed bill is an insistence on appointment to its commission based on principles of Federal character.
“That error of judgment ipso facto reinforces the same socio-cultural that this legislation seeks to cure. Besides, the operative word in the foregoing 4(1) of the bill is “(intent)”.This is both subjective and speculative and leaves the law very unsettled in the sense that the proposed legislation makes no attempt to define what constitutes the intention envisaged by the law and who determines that intent.
“The inherent fear implicitly noticeable is that the government of the day may resort to the use of the Hate Speech Bill as a tool to hunt people who hold divergent views or opinions. That is surely a recipe for a breach of a major fundamental right to freedom of expression and the press” the lawyer averred.

Media Report on National Conference on Hate Speech organised by OneVOICE coalition

FirstNigeriaNews

 

 

Home News We say ‘no’ to Hate Speech bill- OneVoice Coalition et al

We say ‘no’ to Hate Speech bill- OneVoice Coalition et al

By Firstnews -

April 18, 2018

By ‘Segun ‘Bambo Ojomo

Rising from a one-day media parley organised by OneVoice Coalition, the body of civil society organizations and the media have outrightly condemned the recent intention of government to institute the Hate Speech bill in Nigeria.
The parley themed “Freedom of Expression and the combat of Hate Speech in Nigeria”, held at the Banquet Hall, Lagos Travel Inn, Ikeja featured papers delivered by members of the legal profession, media executives as well as representatives of the academia.
Delivering his paper titled “Hate Speech and the Right to Freedom of Expression in Democratic Governance: The Legal Perspectives”, the President, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights(CDHR), Barrister Malachy Ugwummadu stood strongly against the bill from his point of view that it was uncalled for and unnecessary since some past legislation and laws easily could suffice for its intention, although by slight modifications, if at all, necessary.
“The United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) under Article 20 provides that:
•any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
•any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence shall be prohibited by law”, he said.
According to him, the above law already serves as a limitation or regulation of freedom of speech and justifies the attempt to legislate on the prohibition and punishment for hate speech.
In other words, with the existence of this law and with Nigeria also pertaking in its enactment, it would have been unnecessary to further on passing another bill on hate speech.
Subsequent to his definition of hate speech as any form of communication that expresses hatred and attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender, Ugwummadu went further to throw light on some other bills/laws that had been in existence in Nigeria which also make it unnecessary to further on the hate speech bill. The laws, according to him include the Public Order Act- which prevented citizenry from complaining about injustices perpetrated during the colonial era and challenges the full observance of section 39 of the constitution on freedom of expression; the Frivolous Petition Bill- which recommended that anyone wanting to file an petition against the government was required to accompany such with an affidavit which would make the process of complaining about public officers cumbersome and expensive, and to which a fine of N2million or a two year prison sentence was attached for erring individuals; and of course, the recent social media bill which has not seen the light of the day because of the sitting President Buhari’s refusal to give it his assent.
“The inherent fear implicitly noticeable is that the government of the day may resort to the use of the Hate Speech bill as a tool to hunt people who hold divergent views and opinions, which is surely a recipe for a breach of a major fundamental right to freedom of expression and the press”, Ugwummadu concluded.
The Director, International Press Centre(IPC), Lagos, Mr. Lanre Arogundade in his paper titled “Freedom of Expression and the combat of Hate Speech in Nigeria- A Media/CSO Perspective” said hate speech was coined by a group of legal scholars in the US in what they saw as the way different legal systems tackled certain sorts of harmful racial speech, noting that its genesis in Nigeria was more associated with political campaigns of the past 2015 elections.
Categorically stating what the International Press Centre stood for, pertaining to the Hate Speech bill, he said: “Like many other civil society and media groups, the IPC does not support the bill because of the tendency of its abuse. The proposal to set up a commission on Hate Speech would amount to creation of another bureaucracy and waste of public resources. The wielders of power would abuse the law by constituting themselves into the accuser, the prosecutor and the judge, in their own case”.
“The way forward, as proposed in our March 2, this year press release is that what the country needs today is engagement by multiple stakeholders to examine the effective measures to address hate speech”, he noted.
Earlier in his keynote address at the occasion, the Chairman, Media Committee, OneVoice Coalition and Executive Director, Independent Advocacy Project, Pastor Adedeji Adeleye referred to the intention to institute the hate speech bill as “a national embarrassment “.
His delivery noted that from the perspectives that such a law could be used by politicians to hunt down opposition and critical civil society operators; and the fact that there already exist sufficient extant laws that could take care of hate speech in Nigeria, there was absolutely no need for the acceptance of the hate speech bill, especially as it attracts maximum death sentences for erring individuals.
Furthering, he said: “The proponents of the hate speech bill should be made aware of challenges inherent in its adoption in two major areas- defining hate speech, that is, determining what constitutes hate speech; and the effectiveness of using the law to actually and truly curb hate speech”.
“In most of the countries where hate speech had been abhorred, there had never been death but prison sentences. What should warrant death sentence for it in Nigeria? It should be realised that in Nigeria, the line between offensive and hate speech could be blurred. While proper hate speeches- those that pass the ‘clear and imminent danger’ test should be criminalised (certainly not with death penalty), my candid opinion is that we should use non-legal instruments to deal with offensive speeches”, he concluded.
By and large, and in the opinion of this writer, present and future leaders should be conscientious in their governance roles by seeking to unflinchingly protect the rights of the citizenry that are their constituents. A government that creates an enabling environment for equity, fairness and justice needs less fear of upheavals and strife from its citizenry and a citizenry that is free from oppression, repression and injustice also puts more time into harnessing available resources to better its lot.

OneVoice Freedom of Expression and the Combat of Hate Speech in Nigeria

 

 

 

FirstNigeriaNews

Home Journals/ Papers ‘Hate Speech Bill as a National Embarrassment’- Pastor Adedeji Adeleye, Executive Director,...

‘Hate Speech Bill as a National Embarrassment’- Pastor Adedeji Adeleye, Executive Director, Independent Advocacy Project(IAP)

By Firstnews -

April 18, 2018

OneVOICE Freedom of Expression and the Combat of Hate Speech in Nigeria Venue: Lagos Travel Inn, 39 Toyin Street, Ikeja, Lagos. Thursday 12 April, 2018
Keynote Address on the ‘Hate Speech Bill as a National Embarrassment’
There is a growing national debate as to whether there should be a Hate Speech Law (carrying a maximum death sentence) to regulate, in part, freedom of speech or expression and information as well as any publication whether in print, broadcast and social media, that could incite mass protest, violence and carnage, in any form or guise. However, the other side of the debate presents two perspectives: the first is that such a law could be misused by politicians and political office holders in government to hunt down opposition, and critical civil society’s non-state actors. In other words, the debate is now over freedom of speech or expression, hate speech and hate speech law. Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” will eventually be used to silence critics. The second is that there exists sufficient Nigerian extant laws that could take care of hate speech in the country with little amendment here and there. Therefore, a hate speech law is unnecessary.
It seems to me that certain agencies (National Human Rights Commission, NHRC; Nigerian Communication Commission, NCC and National Broadcasting Commission, NBC) are working at cross purposes, not sharing information and data or comparing notes.
For instance, according to many Nigerian newspapers of March 2018, NHRC said it has received 783 petitions, so far, on hate speech and it is keeping them to its chest. Nobody (apart from NHRC) knows the content or the offenders’ identities.
The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) said that it is now working with the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) to curb hate speeches in the social media.
The Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, Engr. Umar Garba Danbatta, said this in Calabar while opening a two day workshop on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Utilization and Sustainability for South-South zone last March, organized by the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF), a unit under NCC.
It is to ensure that the cyber space was sanitized in order not to endanger the peace of the country. “There is a cybercrime law which is being operated between the NCC and the office of the national security adviser, and is being managed by the latter. According to Danbatta, “There are several things people want but if they are not in the law or in the Act, there is nothing one can do,” adding “We need to make sure that people get information and not restrict it but in doing that, people need self-regulation for social media activities. “People should be mindful of what they post; there should be no hate speech, and then they should take responsibilities for what they are putting on the net,” he said.
The NBC too continues to issue all kinds of guidelines and sanctions to broadcast organizations regarding what they can put in the public domain via telecast, airwaves and social media.
These three government agencies have not complimented one another, shared information and data or create the impression that they are working for the common good of civil society.
The Bill on Hate speech before the National Assembly is an embarrassment. Leaders in government seem to revel in taking decisions in moments of emotional flourishes and consequently often fail to soberly reflect on possible unintended consequences of their actions.
The first challenge the Hate Speech Bill will face is determining what constitutes hate speech. One definition of hate speech is that it is any speech that employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize others on the bases of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. In other words, it could be a speech which attacks a person or group or ethnic people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or disability.
If it disparages, intimidates or incites violence against the above category of people, it is termed to be a hate speech. The problem here is that offensive speech is also similarly defined.
Another definition of hate speech is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. Here the key word is ‘Incite’. However defining hate speech in this manner creates its own problem because even the opinions we hold could be construed as an incitement. As Justice Holmes put it in a landmark case in the USA, (Gitlow v New York [1925]), “Every idea is an incitement… The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result.”
Several scholars have tried to more precisely delineate when offensive speech crosses that fine line and becomes hate speech. Susan Benesch, Director of the Dangerous Speech Project and a Faculty Associate of the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard University identified five key variables for determining the ‘dangerousness’ of speech or when speech transmutes from offensive to hate speech: (1)The level of a speaker’s influence (2)the grievances or fears of the audience (3) whether or not the speech act is understood as a call to violence, (4) the social and historical context, and (5) the way in which the speech is disseminated.
Even Professor Benesch’s delineations are fraught with relatives. The point is that delineating hate speech from offensive speech is extremely difficult. The definition of ‘hate speech’ adopted by the Hate Speech Bill is not rigorous enough. And any plea of ‘Nigerian exceptionalism’ is unlikely to persuade the international community when the country tries to implement its provisions and runs into inevitable difficulties. Some people believe that the term ‘hate speech’ should only be used for extreme cases such as speeches that explicitly call for the physical injury or extermination of certain people. I will define hate speech as speech that has ‘clear and imminent danger’ of triggering violence.
Another challenge which the Hate Speech Bill faces is the effectiveness of using the law to curb hate speech. Hate speech is prohibited by law in several jurisdictions such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom and South Africa. In the United Kingdom, among the panoply of the country’s hate speech laws, is Section 5 of the Public Order Act (POA), which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.” Under this section of the POA, Harry Taylor, an atheist who placed drawings satirizing Christianity and Islam in an airport prayer room, was convicted in April 2010 and given a six-month prison sentence. In Nigeria under the Hate Speech Bill he would be condemned to death because of the volatile nature of religion or religious sentiments.
In The Netherlands, which is long considered a bastion for the freedom of thought and expression, Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the country’s Criminal Code prohibits, making public, intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions. Indeed, in The Netherlands, the most prominent hate speech case to date is that of politician Geert Wilders, who was indicted by the public prosecutor in 2009 for his public comments about Muslims and Islam, and his release of a short film documenting what he called ‘inflammatory passages’ in the Qur’an.
In France, Section 24 of the country’s Press Law of 1881 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one’s origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 presidential election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made to Le Monde in 2003 about the consequences of Muslim immigration in France. In South Africa, Julius Malema, the former ANC’s Youth League leader was in 2011 convicted of hate speech for promoting the song, “Kill the Boer”.
In contrast to the above countries, laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States as most often fail legal challenges based on the First Amendment of the Country’s Constitution which prohibits the restriction of free speech. In the US law courts, even ‘fighting words’ (those that pass the ‘clear and imminent danger’ test which are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment) are not that easy to separate from hate speech, which is a protected speech.
An insight into how the American jurisprudence protects hate speech is in the way the law treats the Ku Klux Klan – one of the worst purveyors of racial hatred in that country. In a landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned by the country’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment, Justice William Brennan argued that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
If you look at the above citations all around the world, none carried a death penalty but various prison sentences. Then why should Nigeria be different. What should warrant a maximum death sentence in hate speech in Nigeria?
Today, within the confines of this conference, we have eminent scholars, communication experts, legal luminaries and versatile journalists who will do justice to the Hate Speech Bill before the National Assembly. Therefore, as CSO activists and media practitioners, we are going to learn the global meaning of hate speech across the world (in the western world, Africa, Asia, Latin America), content analysis, history around the world, theoretical framework etc.
Also, we will learn the content analysis of the Hate Speech Bill before the National Assembly; the roles of non-state actors against the proposed bill and what we must all do to mitigate this scourge towards the 2019 general elections.
Equally, we will learn about the Constitutional, legal and theoretical framework underpinning Hate speech; History of hate speech in Nigeria especially pertaining to regional politics of the 1960’s culminating into the 1964-65 western regional crisis of burning down of lives and properties, and the Civil war 1966-1970, and 1983 crises in Oyo, Ondo and Anambra states
Last, we will learn about the roles of both the media & CSOs in fanning embers of political, ethnic, religious and socio-cultural hatred in Nigeria through various hate speeches. How the media and CSOs can eschew hate speech, refrain from publishing/disseminating it and discourage its spread.
The way forward: unification instead of disintegration: Our conduct and pronouncement will determine which way
Enforcement
Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those which are designed for public order and those which are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order require a higher threshold to be violated, so they are not specifically enforced frequently. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty-one years. Those meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold to be violated, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.
Enforcement of laws regarding hate speech in the USA can interfere with constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.
Is hate speech less in countries that use the law to fight it?
This is arguable and debatable. What is clear is that laws can sometimes exacerbate the problem. A very good example of this is what happened in the Australian state of Victoria where a law banning incitement to religious hatred led to Christians and Muslims accusing each other of inciting hatred and bringing legal actions against each other which only served to further inflame community relations. Besides, even if the law is effective in curbing hate speech in countries where the basis of statehood has long been settled, we cannot assume that the same will apply here where the country is extremely polarized (along Christian-Muslim divide) and the basis of statehood remains largely contested. It is in fact tempting to speculate on what will happen if former President Olusegun Obasanjo, General T.Y Danjuma, Junaid Mohammed, Edwin Clark, Prof Ben Nwabueze, Gani Adams, Bishop Hassan Kukah, Pastor Tunde Bakare, Prof Ango Abdullahi, Asari Dokubo and others who hold strong views that are sometimes unacceptable to sections of the country are condemned to death for speeches they uttered? Will that promote amity or widen the social distance among the different sections of the country?
Combating hate speech.
How do we fight hate and offensive speeches?
The ‘No Hate Speech’ campaign sponsored by The Council of Europe vigorously raises awareness and sensitization about hate speech which helped to combat the problem. A growing awareness of the problem has now resulted in increasing teaching in school, of the issue, with enhanced reporting often occurring.
However in Nigeria, a starting point is to recognize that the line between offensive and hate speech could be blurred. While proper hate speeches – those that pass the ‘clear and imminent danger’ test should be criminalized (certainly not with death penalty), my opinion is that we should use non-legal instruments to deal with offensive speeches. There may for instance be a need to develop, in conjunction with critical organs of the society such as Labour unions, NBA, media owners and practitioners as well as CSOs, the taxonomy of what constitutes hate speech and offensive speeches. Media houses through their umbrella associations should incorporate these as part of good journalism practice and impose sanctions on erring members who publish or broadcast hate speeches.
Perhaps one of the most effective ways of combating hate speech is to ensure that purveyors of such speeches are marginalized. For instance in the UK, while the racist British National Party and the ideas it purveys are not banned, it will be political suicide for any politician to be seen to associate with the party’s members. In Nigeria offensive and hate speech mongers are hailed as regional and ethnic heroes. And it shouldn’t be so.
Nigerians should also learn to laugh at themselves. This is already happening in some ways with our comedians (Ali Baba, Charlie Boy, AY, Seyi Law, Basket Mouth and others) who dish out jokes based on ethnic and regional profiling. In fact it could be argued that since every region and ethnic group in the country is both a victim and a victimizer when it comes to hate speech, they countervail and cancel out one another.
Another way is to advocate self-regulatory system against hate speech
There is a compelling need to advocate self-regulatory system and intensify activities geared towards sensitizing the media community and civil society practitioners about ethical and moral standards to avoid high level of hate speech and partisanship in the coverage of 2019 elections. While there are concerns about the challenge that hate speech could pose to both the electoral process and public disclosure, the ‘Hate Speech Bill’ by the National Assembly which carries a death penalty clause is certainly not the right answer. NASS does not need to criminalise hate speech with death penalty.
I would like to suggest CSO-Media Code of election Coverage to set guidelines for monitoring of 2019 elections as well as guide against publishing and disseminating hate speech in any form or guise.
Lastly, as CSOs and media practitioners, we need to concertedly begin massive sensitization, enlightenment and awareness campaigns against hate speech, taking it to the doorstep of the National Assembly that we do not need a law but a moral suasion and self-regulatory system to combat hate speech.
I wish you all a happy and fruitful deliberation.
Pastor Adedeji Adeleye
Executive Director, IAP and Chair, OneVoice Media Committee

STATE OF THE NATION: BUHARI, HIS MEN AND HIS THREE CARDINAL PROGRAMMES A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT Being A Paper Presentation at the Media Parley Organized by OneVoice Coalition at the Center for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Ilupeju Lagos, Thursday November 23, 2017.

OneVoice’s Verdict On Buhari’s 3-Agenda

By Ajibola Abayomi,

February 23, 2018.

Adeleye

On November 23, 2017, a front line civil society group, OneVoice Coalition shared a paper with the press on the state of the nation and performance of President Muhammadu Buhari led Federal Government.

The paper was delivered by Pastor Adedeji Adeleye, Media Chairman of OneVoice Coalition in Lagos as he adjudged the three cardinal programmes of  the president listed as anti-corruption, security and health.

Digging into the archives, Adeleye recalled that when President Buhari took over on May 29, 2015, Nigerians were full of high hopes and expectations that he was going to fix many aspects of the nation requiring quick fixes.

 The activist regretted that:“Unfortunately, the President busted the bubbles of hopes and expectations of many Nigerians: First, it took him three months to appoint his own aides and ended up appointing some bad officials whose integrity has been dented.”

He did not stop there, he went ahead to figure out the security menace of the Fulani Herdsmen saying. “the security challenge of the Fulani herdsmen under the national association called Miyyetti Allah. Using AK 47 and other dangerous weapons, these herdsmen have ravaged and decimated farmlands in Benue, Nassarawa and Enugu States destroying houses and killing thousands of people. Yet, government did not see the compelling need to arrest and prosecute them.

“President Buhari’s much-lauded war on corruption is one area in which his hard-core supporters continue to defend him. In many respects, the defence is entirely understandable: at no point since its establishment in 2003 has the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) been seen to be so active in pursuing alleged perpetrators of graft as it is at present.

“Yet, there has been no high profile conviction till date. We only hear about arrest, interim forfeitures of huge cash and properties but no conviction.”

Pained by the inability of government to address the situation, the pastor  lamented that: “Very soon Nigerians will go to Government hospitals and will not see a Doctor. Statistics from University Teaching Hospital (UCH) Ibadan shows that the health crisis in Nigeria is unprecedented as the mass exodus hits alarming proportions.

“Already it takes an old patient two hours (three hours for new patients) to see a doctor on the average. Over 100 doctors have resigned from UCH this year . 800 Doctors have resigned from Lagos State hospitals over 2 years. 100 this month alone.

“Kebbi State has been unable to employ a single Doctor in 2 years despite multiple adverts for employment. Over 200 Doctors and nurses have resigned from Ladoke Akintola Teaching Hospital this year.

“Nigeria has 80,000 registered Doctors. More than 50,000 are practicing abroad. 92% of Nigerian Doctors in Nigeria are considering finding a job abroad”.

READ THE FULL TEXT BELOW.

                                    STATE OF THE NATION:                                         

BUHARI, HIS MEN AND HIS THREE CARDINAL PROGRAMMES                                                                            A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT                                                                                Being A Paper Presentation at the Media Parley Organized by OneVoice Coalition at the Center for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Ilupeju Lagos, Thursday November 23, 2017.

  

Caveat: (1) As civil society professionals and practitioners, we are more concerned with the impact of government policies, activities and programmes on the ordinary citizens. More often than not, they bear the full consequences of harsh policies. Our position therefore is from this perspective.

(2) We are not the presidential media team of President Buhari whose moral duty is to always launder his image, especially judging from the patronizing book just released last week. We are non-state actors and therefore we are going to assess President Buhari within the governance space.

When President Muhammadu Buhari took over on May 29, 2015, Nigerians were full of high hopes and expectations that he was going to fix many aspects of the nation requiring quick fixes.  Unfortunately, the President busted the bubbles of hopes and expectations of many Nigerians: First, it took him three months to appoint his own aides and ended up appointing some bad officials whose integrity have been dented. Whereas soon after he was sworn in as President, General Olusegun Obasanjo released his first appointments on the same day of May 29, 1999. And no one could fault Obasanjo’s choice of key aides: General Mohammed as Chief of Staff; General Gusau as NSA; Chief Ekaette as SGF; Col. Areh as DG of SSS, among others.

However, it took 166 days for Buhari to form his cabinet. Does it mean for more than ten years that he was contesting to be president he did not have a plan let alone a team to help him carry out his plan? He admitted that he gave directive for boards to be reconstituted since October 2015 but that directive is yet to be carried out. He appears to, not only over delegate his presidential powers but apparently abdicates his responsibility too

In addition, it took President Buhari 14 months for his government to finally unveil its medium-term economic strategy, the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP). Not to mention the lack of improvement in the now-customary practice of delayed budget presentations (and, therefore, approvals). By all means, the Buhari administration can, so far, only be described as taking a bad situation and making it worse. For this reason, continued attempts to paint the government as a victim of a set of unfortunate circumstances are, at most, disingenuous

During the 2015 general elections, President Buhari and the APC had made a number of promises, out of which three key themes stood out: improving Nigeria’s security environment; tackling corruption; and economic reforms. The record appears more mixed, albeit more skewed towards underperformance.

Security

When Buhari came into office, Nigeria’s most pressing security challenges were the menace of Fulani herdsmen rampaging farmlands in Benue, Nassarawa and Enugu States as well as some parts of Ondo, Ekiti and Kogi States; the Niger Delta militants and Boko Haram. While government was able to free many of the Chibok girls and also contain and diminish the Boko Haram insurgency through combination of factors (intelligence gathering, superior weaponry, assistance from international community, surrender by many insurgents etc), the fight is yet from over. Sporadic suicide bombing still take place here and there in Bornu, Adamawa and Yobe States. Government cannot claim ignorance of this loss of lives and properties. Given the current situation, what seems debatable however is whether Buhari’s government can be given a big pass mark on the war against Boko Haram. Nonetheless, it seems less contentious a fact that his government has not directly worsened the situation. Even if the government appears to be doing too little in dealing with the fallout i.e. the risk of famine or drought in the North East as a result of Boko Haram’s nine-year terror campaign in the region and its devastating impacts on farming and trading activities which, we believe, have not yet been fully quantified in Naira terms. And we may never know the exact amount of losses because majority of the citizens in the northeast are illiterates who do not keep records.

The second security challenge is the various Niger Delta militants spearheaded by the so called Niger Delta Avengers, tabling long-held grievances in the oil producing region. The debate existed as to whether the pipeline vandalism (explosions and destruction) and other violence are due to political sabotage driven by Buhari’s political opponents who are in control of the region. Others feel the violence has to do with the administration’s failure to address regional grievances, thereby giving legitimacy to armed groups claiming to be defending the rights of the Niger Delta. There may be some truth to both claims. However, when Professor Osinbajo acted as President he struck some deals with the militants regarding modular oil refineries; return of maritime university and some other agreements. What happened to these agreements when Buhari returned? Who is to blame for the renewed violence by the Niger Delta Avengers? Can we say that the government does not have a track record in dealing with the militants? In the absence of a confirmed permanent cessation to hostilities by militant groups, further attacks will remain a looming threat to the nation’s security. Buhari’s government has failed to douse the volatile tension in the Niger Delta regiom.

The third security challenge is the menace of Fulani herdsmen  under the national association called Miyyetti Allah. Using AK 47 and other dangerous weapons, these herdsmen have ravaged and decimated farmlands in Benue, Nassarawa and Enugu States destroying houses and killing thousands of people. Yet, government did not see the compelling need to arrest and prosecute them.  Audu Ogbe, minister of agriculture (along with other Nigerians) suggested establishment of cattle ranches (whereby grasses will be imported from Brazil & other Latin American countries), Miyyetti Allah rejected it, insisting that they prefer to continue to ravage farmlands in Nigeria and nothing can be done about it. Benue State has passed ‘Anti-grazing law’, Miyyetti Allah is threatening fire. President has refused to say a word against it. No arrest has been made so far. And the ordinary farmers have endangered species in their own land.

The fourth security challenge is the level of kidnappings and killings going on across Nigeria which is simply scandalous. It is very common to read stories of kidnapping and killings in newspapers with reference to Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Ekiti, Rivers,, Kogi and Kaduna States. It is not restricted to the highways anymore. Last two weeks, a brother of the Chief of Staff to the governor of Kaduna state was kidnapped right inside Zaria city. And no one has yet been held responsible to account for this high level of insecurity.

It is a worrisome trend that the Nigerian Police and other law enforcement agents are unable to handle effectively. This is a big failure to the present administration.

Corruption

President Buhari’s much-lauded war on corruption is one area in which his hard-core supporters continue to defend him. In many respects, the defence is entirely understandable: at no point since its establishment in 2003 has the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) been seen to be so active in pursuing alleged perpetrators of graft as it is at present. Yet, there has been no high profile conviction till date. We only hear about arrest, interim forfeitures of huge cash and properties but no conviction.

Within these lie many of the president’s men who ought to have been shown the way out of government if it were to be Europe and United States. For example, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Malami had his hands dirty in many corrupt cases: Early this year, he forced the EFCC to transfer the case-file of the Malabu Oil deals to his office. Ever since, the case-file is gathering dust in his office shelf without any further action from him. Secondly, he was found to have given clearance to Abdulrasheed Maina (wanted by EFCC since 2015) a former deputy director pension commission to resume as a director in the federal ministry of interior. Malami admitted to the Senate sub-committee probing this Maina-gate that he acted in consultation with Aba-Kyari Chief of Staff to President Buhari and Minister of Interior General Danbazzau. In all of these, President Buhari pretended not to know what is going on. No person has been indicted or fired for this terrible embarrassment to the administration. It is business as usual.

• Another case was the conflict between minister of state for petroleum resources Kackwu and NNPC GMD Baru
• DG of DSS (Daura)’s letter to the Senate against the confirmation of Ibrahim Magu as EFCC chairman.
• Babachir Lawal/Ayodele Oke’s corruption charges

It must be stressed here that Maina was not the first person who was fired for corruption but brought back to government. Here are few ones:

1. AbdulRahman Danbazzau was fired as chief of army staff for corrupt practices in arms purchase. Instead of dropping him, Buhari appointed him as minister of interior.
2. Mohammed Barkindo was removed as NNPC MD by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua for stealing huge kickbacks from oil and gas. He was sponsored by the government as Secretary General of OPEC.
3. Assistant Commissioner of Police Zakari Bui, a man accused and dismissed for aiding Boko Haram kingpin kabiru Sokoto to escape from detention, was reinstated and promoted by the present Administration.
4. Ahmed Gambo Saleh, Registrar of the Supreme Court, He stole N2.2bn belonging to the Supreme court and was caught red handed and fired. Today Ahmed Gambo Saleh has been appointed the secretary of the committee monitoring corruption trials.
5. Timipre Sylva has over 46 houses seized by the federal government which have now been returned to him because he is an APC stalwart.

Almost three years into this administration’s tenure, many, indeed most parastatals are still being run by those appointed by the last administration. No less a person than Col Hameed Ali, the CG of Customs had to say recently that 50 percent of Buhari’s government is PDP. Boards are yet to be constituted for almost all the federal agencies. Is it that the President doesn’t know or doesn’t care? For over two years even ambassadors to various countries are just reporting. What does it take to make appointments in Nigeria, a country that is full of talents across virtually local government in the country?

Permanent Secretaries, Executive Secretaries, Heads of Agencies and Directors alongside their Deputies in Federal Government are the richest and owners of expensive houses and hotels in FCT & beyond. Many of them own filling Stations and businesses littered around the country. These businesses were established from stolen funds that were released for projects meant to impact on the lives of the common man. These set of people have also developed the culture of not allowing any of their children to school in Nigeria. They are draining our national wealth to other countries in the name of giving their children good education.

These individuals have taken over the contractors’ space. They incorporate businesses from their own offices without going to Corporate Affairs Commission. They award contracts to themselves and their cronies. In order to cover their tracks, they work in synergy in the same manner the State Governors do under Governors Forum. They are so powerful that they have formed layers of protection under the guise of Association of serving PS, Directors, Deputy Directors, etc which can be used to save anyone of them that fall into the dragnet of Anti-graft Agencies. This is because, the fall of one of them always expose many others. With their counterparts at state level, they are the custodians of 85% of our Annual Budget releases because they are the Chief Accounting Officers of all the MDAs. They are good in assisting the thieving politicians at the Ministries and State Government.

For all the huge number of failed projects, abandoned and unexecuted projects, this set of people have the copies of every document and the figures used under their care, For all the stolen or missing trillions of Naira in this country, they aided the thieves and also took their own share. The level of their desperation is such that they can kill even the President just to maintain their lifestyle.

If Nigeria will be great, this people must be checked. This is to say corruption in MDAs is far greater than any other Arm of Government.

We the people must fight it now. We must expose them now

Economic Reforms

Because of the massive crash of crude oil prices, Buhari’s government was compelled to embark on massive economic diversification in Agriculture and solid minerals. It made bold attempts in reducing youth unemployment through its N-power programmes, and these are yielding good results. Despite the high level campaign and sensitization in agricultural production especially in rice, cassava, yam and other farm produce, government did not pay attention to the following:

• Increasing prices of commodities despite their availability at the market. This is the absence of Price control board or commission that will regulate, control and manage prices, markets, and warehousing of commodities.
• Worsening unemployment especially among the youths. Expansion in agriculture and new openings in solid minerals have not been able to absorb millions of jobless youths because there is a disconnect between government programmes and those looking for jobs.
• Government has not been able to sit with organized private sector to curb excessive profiteering through constant upward price adjustment, not as a result of high cost of production but because of the need to make more profits as the year is drawing to an end.

State of Health

Very soon Nigerians will go to Government hospitals and will not see a Doctor. Statistics from University Teaching Hospital (UCH) Ibadan shows that the health crisis in Nigeria is unprecedented as the mass exodus hits alarming proportions. Already it takes an old patient two hours (three hours for new patients) to see a doctor on the average:

– Over 100 doctors have resigned from UCH this year

– 800 Doctors have resigned from Lagos State hospitals over 2 years. 100 this month alone

– Kebbi State has been unable to employ a single Doctor in 2 years despite multiple adverts for employment

–  Over 200 Doctors and nurses have resigned from Ladoke Akintola Teaching Hospital this year

– Nigeria has 80,000 registered Doctors. More than 50,000 are practicing abroad

– 92% of Nigerian Doctors in Nigeria are considering finding a job abroad

– 70% of Nigerian Doctors are making plans to leave for foreign lands and are taking exams to that effect

– 236 Doctors wrote Primaries for West Africa College of physicians in 2017 to gain admission to Nigerian Teaching Hospitals, 5 years ago over 1000 wrote the same exams. 660 wrote PLAB to practice in the UK over this Primaries exam. Over 1000 have registered for the next PLAB.

Across the nation the story is the same. And the scary part is no one seems to be bothered.

In conclusion, Buhari’s administration has a mixed performance of success and failures. On balance, the administration came at a time the oil fortunes took a nosedive which, to a large extent, made it to fall short of its promises but was nevertheless marked by some little achievements.

Many thanks for your kind attention

Pastor Adedeji Adeleye                                                                                                                       Media Chairman of OneVoice Coalition