If Passed, Hate Speech Bill Could Transform Nigeria Into Haven For Sycophants – Adegboruwa SAN

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and activist, Ebun-Olu
Adegboruwa, speaks on the hate speech bill and the Federal
Government’s plan to regulate social media, in this interview with
ENIOLA AKINKUOTU

The Senate is working
on a bill that prescribes the death sentence for anyone who makes a
hate speech that causes the death of another person. What do you
think will be the effect of the bill, if passed
into law?

That bill is dead on arrival. It will never see the light of day
because it is unconstitutional. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution
guarantees freedom of expression for all Nigerians to impart
information and ideas without restriction and interference. That is
the language of the constitution.

Now, we have enough laws to deal with hate speech or fake news.
Section 24 of the Cyber Crime Act is very clear and unambiguous on
how fake news and hate speech can be dealt with. The Criminal
Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code are replete with
sections dealing with unfounded rumours.

There is also the civil remedy option of libel in court. Should
the Senate go ahead to pass such a bill, we will challenge it in
court because it is against our constitution. It is only somebody
who has something to hide that will ask people not to talk. The
consequence of this bill for us, as a nation, is that there seems
to be a hidden agenda. And the present government is scared of the
reaction of the people to that agenda. This means that the bill is
sinister.

I believe that Nigerians should stand up to this government,
which rose to power on the back of the social media. Now that the
government has power, it wants to remove the ladder, which it used
to attain its present position. We will not allow its plan to
succeed. The bill will be challenged in court.

The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai
Mohammed, announced recently that the Federal Government was
planning to regulate the social media because of the high rate of
fake news and hate speeches. Do you think this approach will be
better than that of the
Senate?

No. With due respect, I believe there is a misconception on the
part of the honourable minister. Being a legal practitioner himself
and a well experienced politician, he will appreciate the fact that
the Federal Government cannot regulate the media.

Section 22 of the constitution says that the mass media,
including the social media, should hold the government accountable
to the people. In other words, the media should make the government
answerable to the people. How do you regulate a person whose duty
is to supervise you?

If the media is to hold the government accountable, how will the
government turn around to regulate or supervising the media? It
means the constitutional role has been removed from the media. So,
it is a misconception to think that the government has the power to
regulate the media. In fact, it is the other way around. It is the
media that will hold the government answerable and accountable to
the people.

How should the Federal Government tackle the issues
of fake news and hate
speech?

I think that by now, they must have come to the realisation that
it is better to collaborate with the stakeholders. The government
should work with the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria,
the Nigeria Guild of Editors, the Online Publishers Association of
Nigeria, the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria and others so
that they can regulate themselves.

Lawyers also regulate themselves and they expose quacks. Every
professional organisation has an internal mechanism for punishing
its errant members. So, I think the government should encourage
self-regulation of the media by the practitioners themselves. The
job is not for the government to clamp down on the media, whether
social or traditional media. It cannot happen. It will only
backfire and even put the government in a more dangerous
position.

If this bill becomes law, how will it
change the Nigerian
society?

Well, the bill will die naturally because it is aimed at
silencing the opposition and critics. If passed into law, it will
only turn Nigeria into a one-party state where you can only hear
the voices of people who sing the praise of those in power. It will
also turn Nigeria into a dictatorship and the voices of the
opposition will be silenced through legislation.

I believe that any government that does this will fail before
long. It will be voted out of power. We have seen worse experiences
as a nation. No dictatorship can ever survive the anger of the
people. So, we are ready. I call on the judiciary to be bold and
courageous and to protect the constitution of Nigeria. We cannot
afford a civilian dictatorship and we will not allow it.

I think people sometimes make decisions that precipitate their
own exit. When a government becomes overbearing or arrogates power
to itself and loses sight of emerging developments worldwide, it is
putting itself in danger.

I believe the present government is inadvertently digging its
own grave. If it forces the hate speech bill and the social media
regulation policy on the people, civil society organisations, NGOs,
professionals, students and others will rise up in arms.

The freedom of speech is an inalienable right that is attached
to humanity. So when you attempt to gag someone and put a lock on
his mouth, it is better for the person to die. I don’t think
President Muhammadu Buhari realises the enormity of the challenges
that he wants to take on by planning to silence everybody. The more
you try to silence people, the more you hear their voices and the
more you see people try all kinds of methods to be heard. I will
advise the government to take a second look at this policy, with a
view to jettisoning it and allowing Nigerians to freely express
themselves as guaranteed in the constitution.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the judiciary’s ability to
stop the government from making certain moves. But we have
witnessed instances where court orders were disobeyed by the same
government for the sake of national security, peace and
stability

There is nothing like that. You cannot place national security
above the rule of law. As a matter of fact, in the case between
Asari Dokubo and the President, it was the Supreme Court that
eventually determined what constitutes national security. So it is
not the duty of the executive to determine what constitutes hate
speech, what constitutes fake news and what constitutes national
security. The determination of the fate of a citizen is in the
hands of the court. The court has to determine whether the
fundamental rights of citizens or the rule of law should be
relegated in favour of national security.

We cannot have a nation where the executive arrogates the power
to make a law, execute the law and interpret the law. We cannot get
to that stage. There is a separation of powers and there must be
checks and balances. All the other institutions of democracy, such
as the legislature and the judiciary, should be allowed to
co-function along with the executive.

I do not agree that the courts should be silenced in the name of
national security. It is the court that determines what constitutes
national security. It is not the security of the President or that
of a minister or the Director-General of the State Security Service
or that of the Inspector-General of Police. It is the security of
the nation and only the courts can determine that.