International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 5 • May 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.

v9n5p23

Hate Speech in Nigeria and Its Implication for National Cohesion

Okpara Onyekwere
Department of Languages and Communication
Abia State Polytechnic, Aba
Chukwu Ebere Mercy
Department of Languages and Communication
Abia State Polytechnic, Aba

Abstract
This paper investigates the use of hate speech in Nigeria. Data for the study were collected through questionnaire
distribution. The population for the study was randomly drawn from academic staff, non-academic staff and students
of Abia State Polytechnic, Aba, Nigeria. Results from data analysis reveal that majority of the respondents were aware
of the use of hate speech in Nigeria and its negative consequences. Over 70% of the respondents indicated that
economic hardship, maginalisation and the desire to demean and outwit others are among the reasons people use hate
speech. Below 60% of the respondents indicated that hate speech has no effect on national unity/cohesion while over
60% of them said it could result in violence and under-development. Based on the above, the paper concludes that
hate speech is a threat to national cohesion and development and therefore should be managed effectively.
Introduction
Language is a social phenomenon. Language is not acquired or learnt for its form‟s sake but is used to perform diverse
communicative and social functions such as expressing opinion, feeling, or desires, asking questions, phatic
communion, making suggestions, reacting to positive and negative actions, giving commands, inciting or persuading
others, condemning and commending actions, etc. Saeed (2003, p.219) notes that the language user needs to “learn the
uses to which utterances are conventionally put in the … language and how these uses are signaled.” This also means
that as the learner/user is learning to use language, the hearer should be able to understand the communicative reality of
utterances so as to know when he is being asked questions, abused, persuaded or otherwise (Saeed, 2003, p.219). The
above phenomenon is what is technically known as Speech Act. In evaluating performative utterances, Saeed (2003)
further observes that Speech Act may be successful or unsuccessful, may misfire or be abused. For detailed
information on evaluating speech acts, see Saeed (2003, pp. 220-231).
Hate speech is an aspect of Speech Act. It is one of the ways language is construed or put to use. Őzarslan (2014)
proposes that hate speech should be conceptualized as Speech Act or discourse and be named “Hate Speech Act”. This
is based on the fact that hate speech reflects socio-cultural realities of language; as an “act”, it is „doing something‟ on
the victims which sometimes results in violence and or psychological trauma. Down (2012) observes that hate speech
is a dangerous weapon which is capable of terrorizing a person or group of people. In Nigeria, it is viewed as being
capable of inciting war, causing ethnic clashes and territorial disputes or civil war (The Guardian, 2018). In 2017, the
Nigerian government pronounced hate speech as an act of terrorism which results in the Senate proposing some bills on
hate speech. It has also been observed that hate speech including its negative consequences is among the indicators of
disunity and segregation (Ozarslan 2014). It is based on the above that this paper investigates the level of hate speech
awareness among Abia State Polytechnic, Aba staff (academic and non-academic) and students and the effort being
made by the Nigerian government to sensitise the citizens on what constitutes hate speech, its effects and possible ways
of controlling or managing it so as to reduce negative incidences of hate speech in Nigeria.
Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study include to
i. ascertain perception of hate speech and level of awareness on what constitutes hate speech in Nigeria by Abia State
Polytechnic, Aba staff and students;
ii. determine why people use hate speech in Nigeria and the people‟s perception of hate speech laws; and
iii. to determine the effect of hate speech on national cohesion

184
 ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) ©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA [Link]

Research Questions
This study is guided by the following questions:
i. What is the perception of the Abia State Polytechnic, Aba staff and students of hate speech in Nigeria?
ii. Why do people use hate speech in Nigeria and what are the perceptions of the respondents of hate speech laws?
iii. What are the effects of hate speech on national cohesion?
Statement of Research Problem
In 2017, the Nigerian government pronounced hate speech as an act of terrorism capable of causing civil war or social
unrest or psychological trauma. The bill before the senate states that “any person found guilty of any form of hate
speech that results in the death of another or stirs up ethnic hatred shall die by hanging (The Guardian, 2018). In
addition to the above, the senate is also considering establishing a commission “The Commission for Hate Speech”
which among its duties includes to sensitise citizens on the effects of and laws guiding hate speech; to receive and
attend to complaints relating to hate speech, etc. There is, therefore, need to ascertain the people‟s level of awareness of
what constitutes hate speech in Nigeria, the effect of hate speech on victims as well as their opinion or reaction to some
of the lists on the agenda of hate speech. It is believed that results obtained from data analysis would help government
to draw appropriate plans that would help minimize people‟s use of hate speech and negative incidences that would
result from it.
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
Data were elicited from the subjects through a structured questionnaire made up of four sections entitled: why people
use hate speech, hate speech awareness, effects of hate speech and hate speech laws in Nigeria. The population
comprised ninety members of the Abia State Polytechnic, Aba community: academic staff, non academic staff and
students randomly selected. The research adopted simple percentage formulae for data analysis. The work is hinged on
Austin‟s 1978 Speech Act Theory and Őzarslan‟s (2014) Hate Act theory.
Conceptual Clarifications
Speech Act theory was credited to the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin who believes that sentences are not limited to the
functions of making statements but can be used to perform other communicative functions such as asking questions,
making requests or promises and many other functions. Austin also claims that some sentences are themselves a kind
of action (Saeed, 2003, p.224). For instance when one says “I write letters” the statement involves the act of writing; it
is a statement which embodies an act. Such and similar sentences are what Austin classifies as Performative
utterances. Reviewing Austin‟s claims of the different functions of sentences, Saeed (2003) notes that sentences are
classified into locutionary act which comprises the act of saying something that makes sense; illocutionary act which
refers to the action intended by the speaker and perlocutionary act which refers to the effect of an illocutionary act.
Although linguists are not so much interested in perlocutionary act as it falls outside linguistic description, hate speech
in this case is viewed from both illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. In Nigeria and other parts of the world where
hate speech is condemned, it is not as a result of its linguistic form but as a result of its effect on the people‟s well being
and its threat to the unity of a nation.
Hate speech
Citing Neissser (1994, p.337), Alakali, Faga and Mbursa (nd, p.164) define hate speech as “all communications
(whether verbal, written, symbolic) that insults a racial, ethnic and political group, whether by suggesting that they are
inferior in some respect or by indicating that they are despised or not welcomed for other reasons.” From the above
definition, it means that hate speech refers to utterances against a group or race. For Weber (2009), hate speech refers
to the “speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour,
religion, gender, identity, sexual orientation or disability” (p.9). In Weber‟s definition, an individual can as well be a
victim of hate speech, but on account of his association with or belonging to a particular group or colour or origin.
Downs and Cowan (2012) note that hate speech is a dangerous weapon which is capable of demeaning the victim‟s
ego, terrorizing, wounding and resulting in both mental and physical injury. In the same vein, Őzarslan (2014,p.70)
observes that hate speech is sometimes accompanied by violent acts against the other person hence he maintains that it
is not just hate speech but also hate act. Őzarslan‟s (2014) observation is in tandem with Austin‟s Perlocutionary act
which shows that speeches do not only state but also acts. Butler (1994) declares that hate speech is a linguistic injury
which produces similar effect as physical injury.
In Nigeria and in other parts of the world, hate speech is frowned at. It is viewed as being capable of initiating conflict
or war as well as capable of causing psychological trauma which may result in physical combat or incite people to act
in an inordinate manner. Although in Nigeria hate speech and hate speech laws seem to be a current phenomenon
which started in 2017 when the Vice President, Prof.
185
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 5 • May 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.v9n5p23

Yemi Osibanjo and the senate declared hate speech as illegal and an act of terrorism, hate speech laws have been in
existence in Nigeria and in several international communities such as United Nations, the USA, Kenya, etc (Alakali,
Faga, and Mbursa (nd). The above source further observes that hate speech laws have been in existence in cyber-space
and political party codes in Nigeria. In addition, there exist some international laws on hate speech which includes
members of the Nigerian society.
Sustainable National Cohesion
The chairman, committee on national cohesion and values of the Meru University of Science and Technology, Kenya
defines cohesion “as a conscious desire for diverse groups of people to belong together and affirm the conditions of
mutual dependence” (Amos, 2016). National cohesion, therefore, refers to a people‟s conscious capacity to work
together towards harmonious co-existence. It involves the people defining methods of interaction at all facets of life,
striving to work together and accommodating people from different cultures and ethnic groups. National cohesion also
includes providing a level and fair ground with equal opportunities for people from diverse backgrounds.
Nigeria is as multi-cultural as it is multi-ethnic. One of the features of Nigeria‟s multi-ethnicity is multi-lingualism,
and majority of the languages are not mutually intelligible. This situation gives rise to the “we” and “you‟ or “the
other” syndrome which creates fractions, insecurity and the feeling of superiority/inferiority. Cohesion in the Nigerian
context is a welcome development. There is need for the diverse ethnic groups to devise means of achieving a cohesive
society which would ensure peaceful co-existence among the citizens, ethnic, political and religious groups and
reduced gender disparity. One of the reasons for establishing cohesive programmes in a country is to prevent or reduce
inter-ethnic violence or conflict, discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex or religion (Wikipedia, 2017; Amos,
2016). In addition, the agenda for a cohesive society would include sustainable development (Baba and Aeysinghe,
2017), maintenance of peace and order, enhancing security of life and property.
In Nigeria and in other parts of the world, hate speech has been identified as one of the factors that challenge a
country‟s national unity. It does not only institute negative ethnicity and divisive ideologies but also is capable of
instituting ethno-religious rivalry, communal conflicts, civil wars or inflicting psychological injury. It is based on this
that the Nigerian government has found it necessary to promulgate laws against hate speech offenders as well as
constitute a commission that would help combat the use hate speech in Nigeria.
Data Presentation and Analysis
The data presented in Tables I – 4 comprised the items in the questionnaire and summary of the respondents‟ responses
on each item.
Table 1: Respondents Response on Why People Use Hate speech
S/N Questions Academic Staff Non-academic staff Students
True False True False % True False
% % % %
1 People use hate speech because they hate other
ethnic groups 63.3 36.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7

2 People use hate speech because they are facing

economic hardship 66.7 33.3 90.0 10.0 46.7 53.3

3 People use hate speech because the are

marginalised 70.0 30.0 86.7 13.3 60.0 40.0

4 Hate speech results from hate actions from

other groups 70.0 30.0 86.7 13.3 43.3 56.7

5. People use hate speech because they want to

demean others 73.3 26.7 40.0 60.0 56.7 43.3

6. People use hate speech because they want to 53.3 46.7 60.0 40.0 56.7 43.3
outwit others

7. People use hate speech because the 16.7 88.3 50.0 50.0 46.7 53.3
constitution guarantees freedom of speech

Source: Field research

The data on Table 1 show that 63.3% of academic staff respondents accepted that people use hate speech because they
hate other ethnic groups while 33.3% of both non-academic and student respondents were of the view that hate speech
186
ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) ©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA [Link]

does not result from hatred for other ethnic groups. On economic hardship and marginalisation, over 65% of both
academic and non-academic respondents were of the opinion that people use hate speech as a result of economic
hardship and marginalisation while 46.7% and 60% of the student respondents indicated that hate speech results from
economic hardship and margnalisation respectively. Also, over 65% of academic and non-academic staff respondents
were of the view that hate action from other groups is another source of hate speech while over 50% of the student
respondents said hate speech does not result from hate action. Between 56.7% and 73.3% of the entire respondents
indicated that people use hate speech to demean others while between 53.3% and 60% of the respondents said people
use hate speech in order to outwit others. Although the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, academic staff and
student respondents said people do not use hate speech because the constitution guarantees freedom of speech while
50% of the non academic staff respondents indicated that people use hate speech because the constitution guarantees
freedom of speech. This shows that the use of hate speech is not a deliberate abuse of freedom of speech as enshrined
in article 38(1) of the Nigerian constitution (FRN, 1999) and international laws such as article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 10th December, 1948 (Őzarslan, 2014).
What the results in Table 1 reveal is that majority of the respondents were aware that people use hate speech and the
reasons they do so. From the results, it was also discovered that over 65% of the respondents indicated that hate speech
results from economic hardship, marginalisation, and the desire to demean and outwit others.
Table 2: Respondents Response on Hate Speech Awareness
S/N Questions Academic Staff Non-academic Students
staff
True False True False True False
% % % % %
1 I have been sufficiently informed of what 60.0 40.0 36.7 63.3 66.7 33.3
constitutes hate speech in Nigeria

2 I know the dangers involved in the use of 86.7 13.3 70.0 30.0 80.0 20.0
hate speech

3 People I know have complained against 76.7 23.3 73.3 26.7 73.3 26.7
hate speech

4 Hate speech contradicts the principles of 50.0 50.0 73.3 26.7 73.3 26.7
freedom of speech as enshrined in the
constitution

5. I have witnessed negative consequences 63.3 36.7 86.7 13.3 66.7 33.3
of hate speech in Nigeria

6 Hate speech is only illegal when used on 26.7 73.3 6.7 93.3 40.0 60.0
social media

7 Offline hate speech is not as injurious as 50.0 50.0 83.3 83.3 63.3 36.7
hate speech on social media

8 Offline hate speech is part of our speech 76.7 23.3 70.0 30.0 73.2 26.7
activity
Source: Field research

Table 2 presents the respondents‟ level of awareness on what constitutes hate speech. Over 50% of academic staff and
student respondents indicated that they knew what constituted hate speech in Nigeria while over 60% of the non-
academic staff respondents said they did not know. Over 70% of the subjects accepted that they knew the dangers
involved in the use of hate speech and have heard others complain against it. On the question if hate speech contradicts
the principles of freedom of speech, about 50% of academic staff respondents said it does while over 70% of both non-
academic and student respondents said it does not. On witnessing the negative consequences of the use hate speech,
over 60% of each set of the respondents said they have. Also, over 60% of the entire respondents indicated that hate
speech is not limited to social media only which means that greater percentage of the respondents accepted that hate

187
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 5 • May 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.v9n5p23

speech can be identified in other forms of interaction and communication. However, over 70% of all the respondents
indicated that hate speech is part of our speech activity.
Table 3: Respondents Response on the Effects of Hate speech
S/N Questions Academic Staff Non-academic staff Students
True False True False % True False
% % % %
1 Hate speech promotes ethnicity in Nigeria 73.3 26.7 36.7 63.3 56.7 43.3

2 Hate speech does not affect national 20.0 80.0 33.3 60.7 36.7 63.3
unity/cohesion

3 Hate speech encourages violence in Nigeria 80.0 20.0 83.3 16.7 73.3 26.7

Hate speech leads to under-development

4 53.3 46.7 73.3 26.7 76.7 23.3
Hate speech demeans people
5. 88.3 16.7 86.7 13.3 63.3 36.7
Hate speech promotes „we‟ and „them‟
6. syndrome 80.0 20.0 73.3 26.7
46.7 53.3
Hate speech promotes hate actions
7. 80.0 20.0 93.3 6.7 53.3 46.7
Source: Field research
The respondents were also tested on the effects of hate speech in Nigeria. Data collected showed that 36%, 56.7% and
73,3% of non-academic staff, student and academic staff respondents respectively accepted that hate speech promotes
ethnicity in Nigeria. In support of the above, over 60% of each set of the respondents also accepted that hate speech
affects national unity/cohesion. In the same vein, majority of them also indicated that hate speech encourages violence
and leads to under-development. Similarly, over 60% of each set of respondents accepted that hate speech demeans
people and promotes hate actions. From the above result, it is obvious that hate speech is a factor against sustainable
national cohesion as well as a challenge to social and economic security. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic society; therefore
any factor that promotes ethnicity will result in member citizens supporting ideologies that favour their group.
Table 4: Respondents Response on Hate speech Laws
S/N Questions Academic Staff Non-academic staff Students
True False True False % True False
% % % %
1 Hate speech offenders in Nigeria should be 46.7 53.3 73.3 26.7 53.3 46.7
prosecuted

2 Death sentence is appropriate for hate speech Nil 100 Nil 100 23.3 76.7
offense

3 I have been sufficiently informed of hate 26.7 73.3 23.3 76.7 16.7 88.3
speech laws

4 Government should formulate

appropriate hate speech laws 88.3 16.7 83.3 16.7 66.7 33.7

5. Offline hate speech should not be regarded as

an act of terrorism 53.3 46.7 40.0 60.0 50.0 50.0

6. Hate speech laws should cover both online 93.3 6.7 83.3 16.7 70.0 30.0
and offline hate speeches

7. Hate speech laws should covers hate actions as 100 Nil 90.0 10.0 70.0 30.0
well

8 Hate speech on social media only should be 13.3 86.7 6.7 93.3 33.3 66.7
prosecuted
Source: Field research

188
ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) ©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA [Link]

On hate speech laws, over 50% of both student and non-academic respondents indicated that hate speech offenders
should be prosecuted in Nigeria while 53.3% of academic staff respondents rejected prosecution of the offenders.
However, 100% of both academic and non-academic staff and 70% of student respondents indicated that death
sentence is not the appropriate punishment for hate speech offenders. Over 60% of each set of respondents were of the
view that government should formulate appropriate laws that would help control the use of hate speech in Nigeria.
Their response shows that majority of the respondents believed that there should be laws on hate speech excluding
death sentence penalty. In the same vein, over 70% of the entire respondents indicated that hate speech laws should
cover both Offline and Online hate expressions. However, about 40%, 50% and 53.3% of student, non-academic staff
and academic staff respondents respectively said that offline hate speech should not be regarded as an act of terrorism.
This shows that a significant number of them agreed that hate speech is negative but should not be treated as an act
against the state or government.
Hate Speech in Nigeria and its Implication on National Cohesion
From data analysed and literatures reviewed, it is obvious that hate speech is the negative use of language both in social
media and in other forms of communication. It is also observed that hate speech does not emanate on its own; there are
some negative actions that generate manifestation of hate speech. For instance, on why people use hate speech, over
60% of each set of respondents were of the view that hate speech results from economic hardship, marginalisation and
the desire to outwit others. Economic hardship results in greater percentage of the citizens living below the poverty
line; marginalisation promotes ethnicity and widens the gap between and among different classes; the desire to demean
and outwit the other also results from ethnicity and the syndrome of “we” and “them”. All these factors are among the
indicators of disunity; and when these indicators are on the increase, those at the receiving end would resort to hate
speech since they lack other weapons to fight back.
From the data obtained from the respondents‟ level of awareness on existence and negative impact of hate speech in
Nigeria, greater percentage of them accepted being sufficiently informed. However, a significant number still indicated
being in the dark concerning the use of hate speech in Nigeria. For instance, over 60% of non-academic respondents
indicated being unaware of what constitutes hate speech. Since hate speech laws are for everybody, there is need to set
organized programmes that would sensitise the entire populace of government‟s plans on hate speech offenders.
On Table 3 which contains the respondents‟ response on the effect of hate speech, 20%, 33.3% and 36.7% of
academic, non-academic staff and student respondents respectively indicated that hate speech has no effect on national
unity/cohesion, but greater percentage of them showed that hate speech promotes “we” and “them” syndrome, hate
action and violence in Nigeria. This shows that some of the respondents were not aware of some of the indicators of a
non-cohesive society. Violence, hate actions and “we” and “them” syndrome are among the factors that challenge
security and national cohesion; hence the issue of national cohesion should not end in research and other forms of
documentation. This means that there is need to establish hate speech and national cohesion commission in Nigeria
which would ensure that the people are educated on the indicators of and challenges on a cohesive society. Majority of
the respondents also supported establishment of laws that would guide both online and offline hate speeches.
This is in agreement with article 10(2) of the European Council on Human Rights of 4th November, 1950 which says
that hate speech should be restricted for the interest of national security, public safety, territorial integrity, prevention of
disorder or crime, etc (Őzarslan, 2014).
Conclusions
This paper has established the presence and use of hate speech in Nigeria. Many of the respondents indicated that they
have witnessed negative effects of hate speech in the Nigerian society. The work has also established that greater
percentage of Abia State Polytechnic staff and students were aware of what constituted hate speech in Nigeria. They
also supported establishing laws on hate speech but were against death sentence as the penalty for hate speech offence.
Based on the above, this paper concludes that hate speech acts are among the factors that define a cohesive society and
the programmes on hate speech and national cohesion should be taken seriously.
Recommendations
Based on findings from data analysis, the paper recommends as follows:
 Actions that could instigate hate speech such as maginalisation, factors that give rise to economic hardship and
many others are to be monitored and curtailed in order to reduce incidences of psychological injury and frustration.
 Government needs to hasten its plan of setting up hate speech laws and a commission that would help in sensitizing
people on hate speech and related matters.
 Hate speech laws on cyber-space and those in political party codes need to be enforced. However, it should
consider people‟s opinion before passing the bill that recommends death sentence on hate speech offence.
189
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 5 • May 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.v9n5p23

References

Alakali, T.T.; Faga, H.P. and Mbursa, J. (nd). Audience perception of hate speech and foul language in the social media
in Nigeria: Implication for morality and law. In: Academicus International Scientific Journal
Amos, C. (2016). National cohesion and values. A paper presented by Amos Chege at student leaders induction
workshop on national cohesion and values, at Meru University of Science and Technology, Kenya.
Baba, I. and Aeysinghe, C. (2017). Re-positioning Nigeria towards sustainable national unity, In: Global Journal of
Human-social Science: Interdisciplinary, vol.17 (4). 41-49.
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge
Downs, D.M. and Cowan, G. (2012). Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate
speech. In: Journal of applied Social Psychology, Vol.42 (6),1353-1375
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Government Press.
Nyaruai, K. (2015). Factors affecting hate speech control for peace building in Kenyan social media: A case of Kenyan
bloggers. M.A Dissertation submitted to Project Planning and Management, The University of Nairabi.
Saeed, J.I. (2007). Semantics. (2nd edition). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Őzarslan, Z. (2014). Introducing two new terms into the literature of hate speech: “Hate Discourse” and “Hate Speech
Act” application of “speech Act Theory” into hate speech studies in the era of Web 2.0

190