by Alexander O. Onukwue

The statement issued by Senator Sabi Abdullahi on behalf of the Senate urged President Buhari to rein in the chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption (PACAc), Prof Itse Sagay, from spreading falsehood and making hate speeches against the Nigerian National Assembly.

Prof Sagay has made claims about the salaries of senators, asserting that as much as N3billion is spent on the members of the upper legislative chamber, per annum.

According to the Senate’s spokesperson on the issue, the claims made by the popular Law professor amounts to “hate speech” because the perception by the public of the Senate would be coloured towards greater negativity but this perception would be based on false and misleading opinions.

There has been an increase in conversations about hate speech, following the statement made by Prof Yemi Osinbajo on the new way of treating remarks deemed as hate speech. In line with President Buhari’s remark about “national red lines” and plans to monitor social media conversations by the Military, a lot has been made of what it would actually constitute “hate speech” and what measures would be employed in terms of penalties.

Following the Senate’s accusation, it would seem that the Executive’s enforcement of its anti-hate speech policy would have to begin with Prof Sagay to show an example. The opinions expressed in his lecture in Lagos are not being received by the legislators as a critique of or the opening up of a conversation around the remunerations of legislators. To them, it is a direct assault that could arouse (more) “hate” from the public towards them.

But it should be worthwhile to properly define what hate speech so that words do not lose value and principles of policy become without form. If there is going to be an effective strategy against what is objectively hate speech, the Executive and Legislature would have to produce a standard, rather than each party using the phrase when it is in their favour.

Op-ed Editor