Music executive, E-money, shows off his impressive garage in new photos
Saraki's Lifetime Career In Financial Crimes And His Jokes On Corruption By Erasmus Ikhide
Nigerian history on corruption wouldn't be written without Senator
Bukola Saraki's name occupying a dominant space. Senator Saraki has been
known for his legislative banditry, political corruption, virtual
criminality and brazen scandals in sordid form, all his life.
by Erasmus Ikhide
Sep 02, 2017
Nigerian history on
corruption wouldn't be written without Senator Bukola Saraki's name
occupying a dominant space. Senator Saraki has been known for his
legislative banditry, political corruption, virtual criminality and
brazen scandals in sordid form, all his life.
You may give it to him, on the flip side; after all, those who wanted
nothing to be said about them have no business in politics. Whichever
standpoint you viewed it, a scandal is a scandal. It's the loss of or
damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality
or propriety. Does that excuse Senator Saraki's moral bankruptcy as a
pervert who exploits the weakness of institutions unto the bargains at
every stage of his career.In an attempt to do damage control, one of his media aides, a few days ago compounded Senator Saraki's already battered image in the eye of the public. “I read a write up titled “BEFORE SARAKI FORGETS” insinuating that Saraki as Vice Chairman to Senator Ahmed Makarfi on the Senate’s Finance Committee in 7th Senate connived with Mrs. Diezani and absolved her of all the alleged missing $20 billion. “At first, I was going to ignore this false and malicious publication mainly because it is coming from a TABLOID that lacks credibility and known for ALWAYS attacking Saraki since he emerged Senate President to justify its paymasters".
This is the point: 'the Sarakis admitted that Saraki was a member of the committee led by Ahmed Makarfi and participated actively in the committee work but did not sign the report as being alleged by critics'.
One would have expected the Sarakis to come up with the original copy of the Senate's finance committee reports that shows empty column against Saraki's name as he refused to sign, being the vice chairman of the committee. We're also expecting Senator Saraki's minority report, indicting Diezani and his fellow committee members, if it was true that Senator Saraki was against the Senate's finance committee report that absolved Diezani? Now, how does Saraki wish to exonerate himself from the committee's report that cover up the highest graft in Nigeria history he partly superintended? Where is the evidence that/or the denial that he was not part of the sleaze? This is the self-denial of the real situation.
The other day Saraki told Bewildered World by deceiving himself that he has returned all the money paid into his account by Kwara State government as ex-governor of the state without showing evidence of transactions. But before then, the Kwara State Government had denied paying Saraki salary after he left office in May 2011. The Secretary to the State Government, Alhaji Isiaka Gold, in a reaction to claims that Saraki was drawing a salary from the state after he left office, stated that the ex-governor's last salary was N291,474.00 for May 2011.
“From June 2011, former Governor Saraki started receiving his pension which was N578,188.00 as other past governors in the country. Gold stated that after the review of pension of former political office-holders by the State Pension Board, Saraki’s pension increased to N1,239,493.94 monthly from October 2014 to date. He said it was “therefore false and misleading” to state that Saraki was receiving a salary after the expiration of his two-term tenure as a governor of the state'.
The denial from Kwara State Government came when the statement of Saraki’s account details with Access Bank inflows from 2007 up till August 2015 revealed that Saraki collected salary as the governor of Kwara State for about four years after completing his second term in office was making the round. A prosecution witness, Mr. Michael Wetkas, in one of the cases against Saraki on economic fraud visited on the country, in his testimony, read out details of each transaction on Saraki’s statement of account as pointed out to him by the lead prosecuting counsel.
In-between some transactions described as salary, there were also some whose narration read as a pension. Wetkas said, “Exhibit 15 is the statement of Saraki’s salary account with Intercontinental Bank. N254,412.25 was the salary for July 2007.
“In May 2011, salary paid on June 3, 2011, was N291,124. The narration reads: KWSG May, 2011 salary. On July 4, 2011, there was another payment with the narration of KWSG July salary, 572,286.32. On August 29, 2011, there was a payment of N744,002.22. On October 27, 2011, there was a narration of October salary of N1,165,466.12. On December 7, 2011, there was a payment of the same amount of N1,165,466.12. On December 28, 2011 there was payment of the same amount of N1,165,466.12 as December pension".
By the narration in the accounts, in February 2012, Senator Saraki was paid the same amount. The narration says salary. By this account statement, they stopped payment of salary and/or pension to the defendant on August 31, 2015. The second tenure as governor ended on May 29, 2011. He became a Senator in the same 2011 till date.
We're not talking about other pervasive systematic scandals which include the humongous amount of money allegedly laundered by Senator Saraki. On October 26, 2009, there were cash deposits by several individuals with different names in 87 transactions into Senator Saraki's GTB bank account. The 87 transaction took place in one day! This was done to circumvent the money laundering law. The transactions were made in that manner because if it was made once, it would be above the provisions of the law.
The account also had cash lodgements on May 18, 2009. There was cash lodgement by Todimu, who is a banker, of $8,000 at GRA Ilorin branch. That same day, he (Todimu) also lodged another $8,000. On the same day, there was another cash lodgement of $4,000 by Bayo, who is a banker.
The total amount was $180,000. There was a total of $20,000 lodgement by the bankers. On May 19, 2009, there were 18 lodgements of $10,000 each. The last three of $10,000 of May 19, 2009, each were made by Saraki himself. On June 12, 2009, there was a lodgement of $50,000 cash by one Garba Dare. On August 21, 2009, $99,975 was transferred into the account by a bureau de change, Bin Dahuuh. On August 26, 2009, there was $49,969 paid by Carlisle Properties and Investments Limited. On September 7, 2009, there was also $59,964 by the same company, Carlisle Properties Limited. Most of the outflows from the account were basically made to American Express Service Europe Limited. Part of the outflows was made to BDC.
From our investigation, the transfers to the American Express Service Europe Limited’s account were up to $3,400,000. Part of the outflow from the account was also to the pound sterling account. The ASEL received the funds for onward transmission to the beneficiary. The telex, dated August 25, 2008, for transfer to the American Express Bank, New York. The amount of this particular telex is $73,223.28. Of the pound sterling account, the witness stated, “The account has six transactions in all – three deposits and three outflows. There were deposits of over £1,516,000. The fraud is endless.
The inglorious escapade of Senator Bukola's financial criminality that rocked his post-banking career and drowns several families is still very much with us. Mr. Bukola has been severally fingered in the financial scandal that rocked and ultimately grounded the once boisterous Societe Generale Bank, GGB, owned by the Saraki family. Mr. Bukola was reported to have siphoned the bank’s depositors’ money to the sum of N17 billion to pursue his gubernatorial ambition in 2007, in the wake of an unprecedented political battle the family faced in the hand of another former Governor of the state, late Alhaji Mohammed Lawal.
At another occasion, the police repeatedly sought after Mr. Saraki to explain how a debt of N9.7 billion was dramatically written off in a certain account, which was suddenly closed by one Abdul Adamu, who they found out to be an aide of Saraki. This is different to the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police Force trail on his heist with a revelation that the former governor of Kwara State was wanted over a N21 billion-bank loan fraud at the defunct InterContinental Bank of Nigeria.
Enmeshed in the sordid legacy of fraud and more undisclosed grafts, the only way out for Senator Saraki is to keep banging his way through, even to the nation's presidency, as a man of incredible vaunting ambition. That's the stuff/character Nigerian political leadership is made of.
Any prosecution of Mrs. Diezani without the inclusion of Saraki and Senate's finance committee's members that cleared her of wrong doings will be an anti corruption war by default. Can Saraki be expelled or expels himself from the Senate presidency so that Nigeria can start on a clean slate? That's less likely.
Saraki's jokes on corruption is the Nigerian jokes. If the Senate's finance committee members who allegedly shared from the Diezani's loot are still the ultimate law givers, it means President Buhari's anti corruption crusade have been making successes in abeyance. When you hear next time corruption is fighting back, then you have an example in Senator Bukola Saraki and his fellow economic predators.
Erasmus, Public Affairs Analyst write from Lagos
Email: ikhideerasmus@gmail.com
Follow me on twitter @ikhideerasmus1
Freedom Of Expression And Legality Of Limiting Thoughts And Opinions By Criminalizing Speech In Nigeria
We are the minorities, we are the governed, we are the masses, we are
the abused citizens, we are at the receiving ends of every government
policies, “we are the people” referred to in the concept of
constitutional democracy, we are the bosses to everybody in position of
authority through the democratic process.
We are the minorities, we
are the governed, we are the masses, we are the abused citizens, we are
at the receiving ends of every government policies, “we are the people”
referred to in the concept of constitutional democracy, we are the
bosses to everybody in position of authority through the democratic
process. It is moral insubordination and political rascality for any
government to tag opinion faulting government policies, a constructive
argument is borne out of reasoning, expressions of dissatisfaction of
ruling governments and view on how governance ought to be handled as
against the way is being handled as hate speech.
Murtala Sambo
The only good thing that is holding us together as a nation which is equally our armour as ordinary members of this society is the sacred nature of our Constitution, and when it is observed that that is missing, the hope in Nigeria as a Nation will surely fall apart and I am sure the centre will surely not hold any longer. The thought of bringing up Hate Speech as a means by which masses and opposition will shut out of the services of checking governmental excesses is in itself a high sense of irresponsibility. To make a proper and justified assessment to this topic, it is important to define the concept of hate speech.
Hate Speech
Definitions of Hate Speech seem similar among those countries which hold the concept as an offense because they have common features. Let us reflect on the few bellows.
Wikipedia Definition: Hate speech is a speech which attacks a person or group by attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.
USLegal Definition: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined regarding race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women
Dictionary Definition: Hate Speech is a speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group by national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
United Kingdom:
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin color.
United State of America:
Hate speech has been reduced to nothing. It is safer to say Hate Speech Law do not exist in the state. The protection of civil rights, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1788 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, provides (in relevant part) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as extending this prohibition to laws enacted by the states. Based on this interpretation, every hate speech offenses brought to court is declared null and void as they are interpreted to limiting or repeal the first amendment (freedom of speech). R.A.V. VS. CITY OF ST. PAUL, (1992), SNYDER VS. PHELPS and METAL VS. TAM (2017)
Commentary:
Common features in the above definitions are DISABILITY, ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, NATIONALITY, RACE, SKIN, COLOUR, RELIGION, SEX, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I do not see any reason why the government will think hate speech includes statement tends to instigate citizens against the government. If government so which to protect herself against citizens’ comments such government should rather resign and pull herself out of the corridor of governance. There are several numbers of cases that related to those features above and yet they were lost by fair and justified comments and inconsistency with freedom of expression. See the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992). In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. In June 2017, the US Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging." Justice Samuel Alito writes:
Speech that demeans by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Freedom Of Expression:
Sec. 39 (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or body authorized by the President on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose whatsoever.
(3)Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society -
(a)For the purpose of preventing the disclosure. Of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) Imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law
Commentary:
There is no need to go on any voyage of interpretation to enable us to ascertain the intendment of the law and the law maker. No government in line with above section of the Constitution can deny any citizen the freedom of expression even if the expression is contrary to the position of the incumbent government. No matter how senseless the view, expression or opinion of any member of society may appear, it can not constitute an offense of hate speech against the government of the day. No wonder there exist a Democratic slogan: ‘majority will have their way while a minority will have their say.' The reason behind this is to give room for a multiplicity of views and opinions as such, tolerance will go a long way in enhancing the purpose of democratic government.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.' This means, amongst other things that every ‘formality,' ‘condition,' ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. See the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of December 7, 1976, § 49).Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” See the case of Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56).
Connecting Hate Speech With Terrorism:
It is a wrong assumption for the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to think hate speech can stay in the same category as terrorism. Thank God the skill and authority of interpretation of any existing laws and proposed laws reside in judiciary not the executive or legislative arm.
People can be punished for airing wrong speech either in writing or speaking, and enough laws exist for such purpose. It is so outrageous for anybody to think that any criticism or justified statement against any government can be classified as hate speech. No opposition will like ruling government and hate speech is always expected from opposition government and same is allowed as it promotes democracy. See the case of The Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly Vs. Danna Unreported, Appeal No. CA/J/207/2013 decided on the 3/12/2014. In this case, the respondent, a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly was placed on indefinite suspension by the house for alleged derogatory remarks she made while speaking on the floor of the Assembly. In voiding this indefinite suspension, the Court of Appeal relied upon inter alia the action of the appellants violated the respondent’s right to freedom of speech. Tur, J.C.A., who delivered the lead judgment, held emphatically on pages 60-61 as follow:
If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that in itself is a violation of the freedom of expression, to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas, etc., under Section 39(1) of the Constitution. What the appellant did also constitute an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, ideas and opinions. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed an indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had the interest to protect. In a democracy, conscious objectors must be tolerated. Their rights must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example, in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment of the Constitution, statutes or rules by the legislature. For democracy to nurture in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard.
It is a further position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Duke Vs. Governor of Cross River State (2009) ALL FWLR (Part 488)252 @ 279 C.A., that pursuant to this subsection can validly stage a demonstration to demonstrate their distrust in government so far no law will be broken, and nothing will be destroyed in the process.
The Nigerian Military And The Hunt For "Hate Speech"
No military man has power or authority to intervene in any activities of people living in the country either civil or criminal. The power of the military is restricted to war and protection against external attack and terrorism within and outside the state. Police are the only constituted authority that can investigate, arrest, and prosecute any offenders. Even if the offence is committed against military man the matter will still be investigated by police.
"Hate speech" among all the countries in the universe has no flavor or link with the offense of terrorism which is a serious offense in the world and our own law should not be an exception.
There are enough laws that regulate inaccurate and offensive speech and it will not be necessary to duplicate offenses to avoid contradiction.
Hate speech has nexus with terrorism in all ramifications.
Directing military personnel to monitor how people react to issue is intimidation and promotion of lawlessness.
Hate speech law should be stopped from seeing the light of the day as same is of no essence.
A campaign against hate speech is a calculation of the government to protect her from any form of opposition.
If hate speech is passed into law in Nigeria, the very essence of opposition which is said to be the life wire of government will definitely be defeated.
Hate speech will curtail the full operation of freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of 1999 constitution as amended.
The present government is a product of what she refers to as hate speech and must not be allowed to disassociate herself from the effect of hate speech.
Sambo Muritala Esq
Email: sambomuritalaesq@gmail.com
Freedom Of Expression And Legality Of Limiting Thoughts And Opinions By Criminalizing Speech In Nigeria
We are the minorities, we are the governed, we are the masses, we are
the abused citizens, we are at the receiving ends of every government
policies, “we are the people” referred to in the concept of
constitutional democracy, we are the bosses to everybody in position of
authority through the democratic process.
We are the minorities, we
are the governed, we are the masses, we are the abused citizens, we are
at the receiving ends of every government policies, “we are the people”
referred to in the concept of constitutional democracy, we are the
bosses to everybody in position of authority through the democratic
process. It is moral insubordination and political rascality for any
government to tag opinion faulting government policies, a constructive
argument is borne out of reasoning, expressions of dissatisfaction of
ruling governments and view on how governance ought to be handled as
against the way is being handled as hate speech.
Murtala Sambo
The only good thing that is holding us together as a nation which is equally our armour as ordinary members of this society is the sacred nature of our Constitution, and when it is observed that that is missing, the hope in Nigeria as a Nation will surely fall apart and I am sure the centre will surely not hold any longer. The thought of bringing up Hate Speech as a means by which masses and opposition will shut out of the services of checking governmental excesses is in itself a high sense of irresponsibility. To make a proper and justified assessment to this topic, it is important to define the concept of hate speech.
Hate Speech
Definitions of Hate Speech seem similar among those countries which hold the concept as an offense because they have common features. Let us reflect on the few bellows.
Wikipedia Definition: Hate speech is a speech which attacks a person or group by attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.
USLegal Definition: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined regarding race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women
Dictionary Definition: Hate Speech is a speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group by national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
United Kingdom:
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin color.
United State of America:
Hate speech has been reduced to nothing. It is safer to say Hate Speech Law do not exist in the state. The protection of civil rights, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1788 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, provides (in relevant part) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as extending this prohibition to laws enacted by the states. Based on this interpretation, every hate speech offenses brought to court is declared null and void as they are interpreted to limiting or repeal the first amendment (freedom of speech). R.A.V. VS. CITY OF ST. PAUL, (1992), SNYDER VS. PHELPS and METAL VS. TAM (2017)
Commentary:
Common features in the above definitions are DISABILITY, ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, NATIONALITY, RACE, SKIN, COLOUR, RELIGION, SEX, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I do not see any reason why the government will think hate speech includes statement tends to instigate citizens against the government. If government so which to protect herself against citizens’ comments such government should rather resign and pull herself out of the corridor of governance. There are several numbers of cases that related to those features above and yet they were lost by fair and justified comments and inconsistency with freedom of expression. See the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992). In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. In June 2017, the US Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging." Justice Samuel Alito writes:
Speech that demeans by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Freedom Of Expression:
Sec. 39 (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or body authorized by the President on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose whatsoever.
(3)Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society -
(a)For the purpose of preventing the disclosure. Of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) Imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law
Commentary:
There is no need to go on any voyage of interpretation to enable us to ascertain the intendment of the law and the law maker. No government in line with above section of the Constitution can deny any citizen the freedom of expression even if the expression is contrary to the position of the incumbent government. No matter how senseless the view, expression or opinion of any member of society may appear, it can not constitute an offense of hate speech against the government of the day. No wonder there exist a Democratic slogan: ‘majority will have their way while a minority will have their say.' The reason behind this is to give room for a multiplicity of views and opinions as such, tolerance will go a long way in enhancing the purpose of democratic government.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.' This means, amongst other things that every ‘formality,' ‘condition,' ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. See the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of December 7, 1976, § 49).Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” See the case of Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56).
Connecting Hate Speech With Terrorism:
It is a wrong assumption for the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to think hate speech can stay in the same category as terrorism. Thank God the skill and authority of interpretation of any existing laws and proposed laws reside in judiciary not the executive or legislative arm.
People can be punished for airing wrong speech either in writing or speaking, and enough laws exist for such purpose. It is so outrageous for anybody to think that any criticism or justified statement against any government can be classified as hate speech. No opposition will like ruling government and hate speech is always expected from opposition government and same is allowed as it promotes democracy. See the case of The Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly Vs. Danna Unreported, Appeal No. CA/J/207/2013 decided on the 3/12/2014. In this case, the respondent, a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly was placed on indefinite suspension by the house for alleged derogatory remarks she made while speaking on the floor of the Assembly. In voiding this indefinite suspension, the Court of Appeal relied upon inter alia the action of the appellants violated the respondent’s right to freedom of speech. Tur, J.C.A., who delivered the lead judgment, held emphatically on pages 60-61 as follow:
If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that in itself is a violation of the freedom of expression, to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas, etc., under Section 39(1) of the Constitution. What the appellant did also constitute an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, ideas and opinions. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed an indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had the interest to protect. In a democracy, conscious objectors must be tolerated. Their rights must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example, in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment of the Constitution, statutes or rules by the legislature. For democracy to nurture in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard.
It is a further position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Duke Vs. Governor of Cross River State (2009) ALL FWLR (Part 488)252 @ 279 C.A., that pursuant to this subsection can validly stage a demonstration to demonstrate their distrust in government so far no law will be broken, and nothing will be destroyed in the process.
The Nigerian Military And The Hunt For "Hate Speech"
No military man has power or authority to intervene in any activities of people living in the country either civil or criminal. The power of the military is restricted to war and protection against external attack and terrorism within and outside the state. Police are the only constituted authority that can investigate, arrest, and prosecute any offenders. Even if the offence is committed against military man the matter will still be investigated by police.
"Hate speech" among all the countries in the universe has no flavor or link with the offense of terrorism which is a serious offense in the world and our own law should not be an exception.
There are enough laws that regulate inaccurate and offensive speech and it will not be necessary to duplicate offenses to avoid contradiction.
Hate speech has nexus with terrorism in all ramifications.
Directing military personnel to monitor how people react to issue is intimidation and promotion of lawlessness.
Hate speech law should be stopped from seeing the light of the day as same is of no essence.
A campaign against hate speech is a calculation of the government to protect her from any form of opposition.
If hate speech is passed into law in Nigeria, the very essence of opposition which is said to be the life wire of government will definitely be defeated.
Hate speech will curtail the full operation of freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of 1999 constitution as amended.
The present government is a product of what she refers to as hate speech and must not be allowed to disassociate herself from the effect of hate speech.
Sambo Muritala Esq
Email: sambomuritalaesq@gmail.com
Coco Austin puts her hot body on display as she unveils new lingerie collection (photos)
In one of the photos, she poses in what appears to be her shoe closet as she leans against shelves wearing a pretty pink shoe.
Freedom Of Expression And Legality Of Limiting Thoughts And Opinions By Criminalizing Speech In Nigeria
We are the minorities, we are the governed, we are the masses, we are
the abused citizens, we are at the receiving ends of every government
policies, “we are the people” referred to in the concept of
constitutional democracy, we are the bosses to everybody in position of
authority through the democratic process.
We are the minorities, we
are the governed, we are the masses, we are the abused citizens, we are
at the receiving ends of every government policies, “we are the people”
referred to in the concept of constitutional democracy, we are the
bosses to everybody in position of authority through the democratic
process. It is moral insubordination and political rascality for any
government to tag opinion faulting government policies, a constructive
argument is borne out of reasoning, expressions of dissatisfaction of
ruling governments and view on how governance ought to be handled as
against the way is being handled as hate speech.
Murtala Sambo
The only good thing that is holding us together as a nation which is equally our armour as ordinary members of this society is the sacred nature of our Constitution, and when it is observed that that is missing, the hope in Nigeria as a Nation will surely fall apart and I am sure the centre will surely not hold any longer. The thought of bringing up Hate Speech as a means by which masses and opposition will shut out of the services of checking governmental excesses is in itself a high sense of irresponsibility. To make a proper and justified assessment to this topic, it is important to define the concept of hate speech.
Hate Speech
Definitions of Hate Speech seem similar among those countries which hold the concept as an offense because they have common features. Let us reflect on the few bellows.
Wikipedia Definition: Hate speech is a speech which attacks a person or group by attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.
USLegal Definition: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined regarding race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women
Dictionary Definition: Hate Speech is a speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group by national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
United Kingdom:
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin color.
United State of America:
Hate speech has been reduced to nothing. It is safer to say Hate Speech Law do not exist in the state. The protection of civil rights, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1788 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, provides (in relevant part) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as extending this prohibition to laws enacted by the states. Based on this interpretation, every hate speech offenses brought to court is declared null and void as they are interpreted to limiting or repeal the first amendment (freedom of speech). R.A.V. VS. CITY OF ST. PAUL, (1992), SNYDER VS. PHELPS and METAL VS. TAM (2017)
Commentary:
Common features in the above definitions are DISABILITY, ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, NATIONALITY, RACE, SKIN, COLOUR, RELIGION, SEX, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I do not see any reason why the government will think hate speech includes statement tends to instigate citizens against the government. If government so which to protect herself against citizens’ comments such government should rather resign and pull herself out of the corridor of governance. There are several numbers of cases that related to those features above and yet they were lost by fair and justified comments and inconsistency with freedom of expression. See the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992). In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. In June 2017, the US Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging." Justice Samuel Alito writes:
Speech that demeans by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Freedom Of Expression:
Sec. 39 (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or body authorized by the President on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose whatsoever.
(3)Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society -
(a)For the purpose of preventing the disclosure. Of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) Imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law
Commentary:
There is no need to go on any voyage of interpretation to enable us to ascertain the intendment of the law and the law maker. No government in line with above section of the Constitution can deny any citizen the freedom of expression even if the expression is contrary to the position of the incumbent government. No matter how senseless the view, expression or opinion of any member of society may appear, it can not constitute an offense of hate speech against the government of the day. No wonder there exist a Democratic slogan: ‘majority will have their way while a minority will have their say.' The reason behind this is to give room for a multiplicity of views and opinions as such, tolerance will go a long way in enhancing the purpose of democratic government.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.' This means, amongst other things that every ‘formality,' ‘condition,' ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. See the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of December 7, 1976, § 49).Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” See the case of Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56).
Connecting Hate Speech With Terrorism:
It is a wrong assumption for the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to think hate speech can stay in the same category as terrorism. Thank God the skill and authority of interpretation of any existing laws and proposed laws reside in judiciary not the executive or legislative arm.
People can be punished for airing wrong speech either in writing or speaking, and enough laws exist for such purpose. It is so outrageous for anybody to think that any criticism or justified statement against any government can be classified as hate speech. No opposition will like ruling government and hate speech is always expected from opposition government and same is allowed as it promotes democracy. See the case of The Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly Vs. Danna Unreported, Appeal No. CA/J/207/2013 decided on the 3/12/2014. In this case, the respondent, a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly was placed on indefinite suspension by the house for alleged derogatory remarks she made while speaking on the floor of the Assembly. In voiding this indefinite suspension, the Court of Appeal relied upon inter alia the action of the appellants violated the respondent’s right to freedom of speech. Tur, J.C.A., who delivered the lead judgment, held emphatically on pages 60-61 as follow:
If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that in itself is a violation of the freedom of expression, to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas, etc., under Section 39(1) of the Constitution. What the appellant did also constitute an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, ideas and opinions. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed an indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had the interest to protect. In a democracy, conscious objectors must be tolerated. Their rights must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example, in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment of the Constitution, statutes or rules by the legislature. For democracy to nurture in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard.
It is a further position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Duke Vs. Governor of Cross River State (2009) ALL FWLR (Part 488)252 @ 279 C.A., that pursuant to this subsection can validly stage a demonstration to demonstrate their distrust in government so far no law will be broken, and nothing will be destroyed in the process.
The Nigerian Military And The Hunt For "Hate Speech"
No military man has power or authority to intervene in any activities of people living in the country either civil or criminal. The power of the military is restricted to war and protection against external attack and terrorism within and outside the state. Police are the only constituted authority that can investigate, arrest, and prosecute any offenders. Even if the offence is committed against military man the matter will still be investigated by police.
"Hate speech" among all the countries in the universe has no flavor or link with the offense of terrorism which is a serious offense in the world and our own law should not be an exception.
There are enough laws that regulate inaccurate and offensive speech and it will not be necessary to duplicate offenses to avoid contradiction.
Hate speech has nexus with terrorism in all ramifications.
Directing military personnel to monitor how people react to issue is intimidation and promotion of lawlessness.
Hate speech law should be stopped from seeing the light of the day as same is of no essence.
A campaign against hate speech is a calculation of the government to protect her from any form of opposition.
If hate speech is passed into law in Nigeria, the very essence of opposition which is said to be the life wire of government will definitely be defeated.
Hate speech will curtail the full operation of freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of 1999 constitution as amended.
The present government is a product of what she refers to as hate speech and must not be allowed to disassociate herself from the effect of hate speech.
Sambo Muritala Esq
Email: sambomuritalaesq@gmail.com
Freedom Of Expression And Legality Of Limiting Thoughts And Opinions By Criminalizing Speech In Nigeria
We are the minorities, we are the governed, we are the masses, we are
the abused citizens, we are at the receiving ends of every government
policies, “we are the people” referred to in the concept of
constitutional democracy, we are the bosses to everybody in position of
authority through the democratic process.
We are the minorities, we
are the governed, we are the masses, we are the abused citizens, we are
at the receiving ends of every government policies, “we are the people”
referred to in the concept of constitutional democracy, we are the
bosses to everybody in position of authority through the democratic
process. It is moral insubordination and political rascality for any
government to tag opinion faulting government policies, a constructive
argument is borne out of reasoning, expressions of dissatisfaction of
ruling governments and view on how governance ought to be handled as
against the way is being handled as hate speech.
Murtala Sambo
The only good thing that is holding us together as a nation which is equally our armour as ordinary members of this society is the sacred nature of our Constitution, and when it is observed that that is missing, the hope in Nigeria as a Nation will surely fall apart and I am sure the centre will surely not hold any longer. The thought of bringing up Hate Speech as a means by which masses and opposition will shut out of the services of checking governmental excesses is in itself a high sense of irresponsibility. To make a proper and justified assessment to this topic, it is important to define the concept of hate speech.
Hate Speech
Definitions of Hate Speech seem similar among those countries which hold the concept as an offense because they have common features. Let us reflect on the few bellows.
Wikipedia Definition: Hate speech is a speech which attacks a person or group by attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.
USLegal Definition: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined regarding race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women
Dictionary Definition: Hate Speech is a speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group by national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
United Kingdom:
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin color.
United State of America:
Hate speech has been reduced to nothing. It is safer to say Hate Speech Law do not exist in the state. The protection of civil rights, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1788 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, provides (in relevant part) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as extending this prohibition to laws enacted by the states. Based on this interpretation, every hate speech offenses brought to court is declared null and void as they are interpreted to limiting or repeal the first amendment (freedom of speech). R.A.V. VS. CITY OF ST. PAUL, (1992), SNYDER VS. PHELPS and METAL VS. TAM (2017)
Commentary:
Common features in the above definitions are DISABILITY, ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, NATIONALITY, RACE, SKIN, COLOUR, RELIGION, SEX, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I do not see any reason why the government will think hate speech includes statement tends to instigate citizens against the government. If government so which to protect herself against citizens’ comments such government should rather resign and pull herself out of the corridor of governance. There are several numbers of cases that related to those features above and yet they were lost by fair and justified comments and inconsistency with freedom of expression. See the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992). In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. In June 2017, the US Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging." Justice Samuel Alito writes:
Speech that demeans by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Freedom Of Expression:
Sec. 39 (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or body authorized by the President on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose whatsoever.
(3)Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society -
(a)For the purpose of preventing the disclosure. Of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) Imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law
Commentary:
There is no need to go on any voyage of interpretation to enable us to ascertain the intendment of the law and the law maker. No government in line with above section of the Constitution can deny any citizen the freedom of expression even if the expression is contrary to the position of the incumbent government. No matter how senseless the view, expression or opinion of any member of society may appear, it can not constitute an offense of hate speech against the government of the day. No wonder there exist a Democratic slogan: ‘majority will have their way while a minority will have their say.' The reason behind this is to give room for a multiplicity of views and opinions as such, tolerance will go a long way in enhancing the purpose of democratic government.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.' This means, amongst other things that every ‘formality,' ‘condition,' ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. See the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of December 7, 1976, § 49).Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” See the case of Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56).
Connecting Hate Speech With Terrorism:
It is a wrong assumption for the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to think hate speech can stay in the same category as terrorism. Thank God the skill and authority of interpretation of any existing laws and proposed laws reside in judiciary not the executive or legislative arm.
People can be punished for airing wrong speech either in writing or speaking, and enough laws exist for such purpose. It is so outrageous for anybody to think that any criticism or justified statement against any government can be classified as hate speech. No opposition will like ruling government and hate speech is always expected from opposition government and same is allowed as it promotes democracy. See the case of The Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly Vs. Danna Unreported, Appeal No. CA/J/207/2013 decided on the 3/12/2014. In this case, the respondent, a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly was placed on indefinite suspension by the house for alleged derogatory remarks she made while speaking on the floor of the Assembly. In voiding this indefinite suspension, the Court of Appeal relied upon inter alia the action of the appellants violated the respondent’s right to freedom of speech. Tur, J.C.A., who delivered the lead judgment, held emphatically on pages 60-61 as follow:
If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that in itself is a violation of the freedom of expression, to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas, etc., under Section 39(1) of the Constitution. What the appellant did also constitute an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, ideas and opinions. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed an indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had the interest to protect. In a democracy, conscious objectors must be tolerated. Their rights must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example, in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment of the Constitution, statutes or rules by the legislature. For democracy to nurture in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard.
It is a further position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Duke Vs. Governor of Cross River State (2009) ALL FWLR (Part 488)252 @ 279 C.A., that pursuant to this subsection can validly stage a demonstration to demonstrate their distrust in government so far no law will be broken, and nothing will be destroyed in the process.
The Nigerian Military And The Hunt For "Hate Speech"
No military man has power or authority to intervene in any activities of people living in the country either civil or criminal. The power of the military is restricted to war and protection against external attack and terrorism within and outside the state. Police are the only constituted authority that can investigate, arrest, and prosecute any offenders. Even if the offence is committed against military man the matter will still be investigated by police.
"Hate speech" among all the countries in the universe has no flavor or link with the offense of terrorism which is a serious offense in the world and our own law should not be an exception.
There are enough laws that regulate inaccurate and offensive speech and it will not be necessary to duplicate offenses to avoid contradiction.
Hate speech has nexus with terrorism in all ramifications.
Directing military personnel to monitor how people react to issue is intimidation and promotion of lawlessness.
Hate speech law should be stopped from seeing the light of the day as same is of no essence.
A campaign against hate speech is a calculation of the government to protect her from any form of opposition.
If hate speech is passed into law in Nigeria, the very essence of opposition which is said to be the life wire of government will definitely be defeated.
Hate speech will curtail the full operation of freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of 1999 constitution as amended.
The present government is a product of what she refers to as hate speech and must not be allowed to disassociate herself from the effect of hate speech.
Sambo Muritala Esq
Email: sambomuritalaesq@gmail.com
Three men arraigned in court for allegedly gang-raping a 17 year old girl in Lagos
According to the prosecutor, Inspector Chinalu Uwadione, the accused persons alongside two others who are currently on the run, forcefully had sex with their victim against her wish. According to the Nation, the arraigned suspects contracted one Fela Domeh who accosted and threatened the girl with a knife.
“They forcibly gang-raped the teenager while she was sent by her mother to buy Noodles around 8 p.m at Fagba Agege Lagos on May 25.”
The prosecutor also alleged that the suspects took her to Fela Domeh room to have sex with her. The offence committed by the suspects, contravened Sections 411,261 and 263 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.
The Magistrate, Mrs Oluyemisi Adelaja, admitted the accused persons to a bail of N500,000 with two sureties in like sum.
She adjourned the matter until October 9th for mention
Biafra: Police Deploy More Personnel In S’East, S’South …Vow To Stop Kanu From Fleeing If Court Revokes His Bail
The police have increased the numerical strength of their personnel in
the South-East and South-South zones of the country as part of measures
to prevent a breach of the peace, which may result from the activities
of Biafran agitators ahead of the upcoming Anambra State governorship
election, Saturday PUNCH has learnt.
by Adelani Adepegba, Ifeanyi Onuba and Ihuoma Chiedozie Sep 02, 2017
The police have increased
the numerical strength of their personnel in the South-East and
South-South zones of the country as part of measures to prevent a breach
of the peace, which may result from the activities of Biafran agitators
ahead of the upcoming Anambra State governorship election, Saturday
PUNCH has learnt.
And apart from the Mobile Police Force operatives, the force
told Saturday PUNCH on Friday that it had deployed the Counter-Terrorism
unit, the Intelligence unit and other conventional policemen, who would
work with the state commands in the South-East and South-South zones.Biafra: Group advises AGF against re-arresting Kanu
In addition, top sources in the police told Saturday PUNCH that the security agency had placed the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, under surveillance to prevent him from fleeing the country should the court revoke his bail and order his re-arrest for allegedly flouting his bail conditions.
The Federal Government had last week asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to revoke the bail granted to Kanu, who is being prosecuted along with others on treasonable felony charges.
The government had accused the IPOB leader of flouting his bail conditions and filed an application asking the court to revoke his bail and direct security agencies to re-arrest him.
The prosecution had said that instead of using the opportunity of his bail to attend to his health needs, Kanu had gone ahead to inaugurate a security outfit, known as Biafra Security Service.
The prosecution said this constituted a threat to national security.
But when contacted, the Force Public Relations Officer, Jimoh Moshood, confirmed that the police had deployed more riot policemen in the South-East and South-South regions to avert a breach of security and maintain law and order.
But Moshood did not confirm if Kanu was under surveillance to prevent him from fleeing the country should the court rule in favour of the government, even though, sources in the police maintained that that was the situation.
Moshood said, “We have made additional deployments, particularly in Anambra State, because of the upcoming governorship election and also to other South-East and South-South states to ensure that IPOB did not actualise its threat of stopping the election.
“So also, any pronouncement from the court would be strictly enforced, irrespective of the persons involved. Nobody is above the law, so any court pronouncement would be enforced by the police.”
Moshood reiterated that the force was closely monitoring the situation in the South-East.
“We are strictly monitoring the situation for any eventuality from the court since there is an ongoing judicial process,” the police spokesman explained.Moshood said the police would not leave anything to chance, while noting that any judicial order in respect of Kanu and other agitators would be enforced immediately.
He added, “We are not leaving anything to chance; we are to ensure there is law and order and any pronouncement from the court would be strictly enforced. We are watching the situation closely. We have made enough deployments and we are going to act appropriately.”
But when asked to give the number of the police operatives deployed for the operation, the Force PRO said it was against the policy of the police to give out the number of the personnel on deployment.
“We have yet to deploy helicopters because the situation is not ripe for it,” he added.
Kanu had, in his application filed on July 1, 2017, urged the court to vary the conditions of the bail granted him on April 25, 2017. But the Federal Government had, in its application filed on August 25, 2017, asked the court to revoke the bail granted Kanu, on the grounds that the IPOB leader had flouted the bail conditions.
It maintained that Kanu had flagrantly violated all the bail conditions, adding that the essence of the bail, which was for Kanu to look after his health, had been defeated.
Attempts to get IPOB’s reaction to the development were not successful as of the time of filing this report.
Calls to the mobile telephone line of the group’s spokesman, Mr. Emma Powerful, did not connect and messages sent to him on WhatsApp, which is usually the best way to reach him, were not replied to.
But IPOB had, last weekend, vowed to resist any attempt by the Federal Government to re-arrest Kanu, without first obtaining a court order.
Powerful had said Kanu was prepared to be locked up in his quest to achieve Biafra.
In a statement released then, IPOB said, “IPOB wishes to notify the public about the illegal and undemocratic moves by the Federal Government, led by President Muhammadu Buhari, to re-arrest our leader, who committed no crime known to the laws of the Nigerian state.
“Before Buhari decides to make a move to arrest our leader, he must first go to court to obtain an order or else it will be resisted by millions of IPOB members.”
Reacting to the development, the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra warned the Federal Government not to take the ‘non-violence approach’ of the pro-Biafra agitators for granted.
MASSOB National Director of Information, Samuel Edeson, who spoke to one of our correspondents in Enugu, said the secessionists were not bothered about the deployment of police and security agents to the South-East and South-South regions.
Edeson vowed that ‘Biafrans’ would use all resources at their disposal to resist any attempt to re-arrest Kanu.
He said, “The Inspector General of Police is just trying to please his masters, but we are not bothered.
“The deployment of security agents is just a ploy to clamp down on peaceful agitators who are only seeking self-determination, but it is a plus to the struggle because it shows that the government is jittery. We cannot be intimidated.
“But we want to warn that our nonviolent approach should not be taken for granted. The Nigerian government should not take our peaceful disposition for granted.
“There is a limit to human endurance. President Muhammadu Buhari and the Nigerian government should know that the Biafrans of today are different from the Biafrans of yesterday – a lot has changed and we cannot be taken for granted.
“They are plotting to arrest Nnamdi Kanu, and we are waiting for them. They know they cannot arrest Nnamdi Kanu when they have failed to arrest the Arewa youths, who issued quit notice to Igbo in the North. We will resist any attempt to arrest Nnamdi Kanu. If they try to do that, all Biafrans will use all resources at their disposal to defend Nnamdi Kanu.”
corroption Over 3-years after, EFCC Returns Seized 48 Houses To Timipre Sylva
The former governor’s houses were seized in January 2013 during the administration of former president, Goodluck Jonathan while Sylvia was being prosecuted at a Federal High Court in Abuja for alleged misappropriation of N6.46 billion state funds when he was governor of the state.
Some of the assets belonging to the former governor include a mansion at 3 River Niger Street, plot 3192 Cadastral zone AO, Maitama District Abuja; nine units (comprising six one bedroom and 3 two bedroom apartments) at 8 Sefadu Street Wuse zone 2, plot 262 Cadastral zone AO2, Wuse Abuja; and 2 units duplexes at 5 Oguta Street, plot 906 Cadastral zone Wuse 11 Abuja.
Others are: a duplex at Plot 1271 Nike Street Cadastral zone AO5, Maitama District Abuja; a duplex at Phase 1 Unit No. 1 (Villa 1) Palm Springs Gold Estate, Cachez Turkey Projects Limited, Mpape, Abuja; 10 units of one-room apartments at 8 Mistrata Street plot 232 Cadastral zone Wuse 11 Abuja; 5 units duplexes at Plot No 1070 Dakibiyu District Cadastral zone B10, Abuja; 16 units service apartments at Plot 1181 Thaba Tseka Crescent, Off IBB Way, Wuse 11, Abuja and 3 units of three- bedroom flats at No. 1 Mubi Close, Plot 766. Cadastral Zone A01, Garki, Abuja.
Sylva was first arraigned on Tuesday June 5, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)