Framing of Hate Speech in Selected Broadcasts of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)

Framing of Hate Speech in Selected Broadcasts of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND TO STUDY

Hate Speech is speech which attacks a person or group based on attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture, or conduct, writing o display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group or individual based on their membership to the group or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group.

According to Matt Slick on www.carm.org/hate-speech, “Hate speech is a term often used by liberals in their attacks against Christians.” www.usaeducationguides.com further reiterates it is “A term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.”

Hate speech sets itself at unfettered liberty thus disparages without reason and incites without logic. Hate speech sets a person or group of persons against another. The 2016 Presidential election in the United States was a fertile ground for hate speech and up till this day, long after the election was won and lost, the American society remains bifurcated on account of the unprecedented hate speech that attended the election.

In Nigeria, Hate speech is thick in the air. First, it was the PDP vs APC hate speech campaign of 2015 that birthed the current President MuhammaduBuhari government. Both parties were unrelenting in their wild orgies of hate speech campaigns including profiling of candidates and trying to incite different ethno-religious groups against each party’s candidate. The Nigerian polity has become a huge hate field and it shows in the myriad abuses, threats, curses and tantrums that stalk the social media space. It is evident in the winner-takes-all attitude of the government especially in the area of appointments.
JideoforAdibe in his article titled Ethnicity, Hate Speech and Nation Building, states that Hate Speech is so pervasive in Nigeria that it is doubtful if there are many Nigerians that are completely free from the vice.

Nigeria has been described as an anomalous entity (Ekanola 2006), in which different ethnic groups that constitute the Nation have no shared history, culture or language. Even the physiognomy of ethnic groups is very different. Such that members of particular groups are easily identified by their physical attributes. The British colonial incursion into Africa has been credited with the existence of this nation. A fact that is constantly reiterated in discussions; offline and online. The absence of collective identity by ethnic groups in Nigeria worsens its experience of hate speech.

According to Jennifer Joel(2012; Ethnopaulism and Ethno-religious Hate Speech in Nigeria), an interesting fact about Hate-speech in Nigeria is the absence of a set of aggressors and victims. In different frontiers, these roles shift depending on the part of the country an individual hail from and reside in. While the Northern manifestations of intolerance and hate speech are often accompanied by violent acts, in the South, it is more subtle. Here, Hate-speech is manifested more in stereotyping and abusive denotation of mannerisms of other ethnic groups, particularly Northerners.

For this study, we will focus on I.P.O.B (Indigenous People of Biafra). Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) are the original inhabitants and owners of the Lands and Communities of Biafra and Biafraland spanning centuries of tradition and historical ancient cultural ties. They are presently located in the areas called South East, some parts of South-South and Middle Belt of Nigeria. They are simply under occupation, servitude and modern-day slavery under the Hausa-Fulani controlled Nigerian establishment. The organisation is led by Nnamdi Kanu, a United Kingdom-based political activist who has been detained by the Nigerian government since October 2015 despite court orders for his release. Radio Biafra, also known as Voice of Biafra, is a radio station that was founded by the government of the Republic of Biafra. It is now operated by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It is believed to have its first transmission before the Nigeria-Biafra war, the radio station was instrumental in the broadcast of speeches and propaganda by Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu to the people of the Republic of Biafra.

Sources describe the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a “separatist” organization (BBC 15 Dec. 2015; International Crisis Group 4 Dec. 2015) or as a “secessionist” group (Jamestown Foundation 16 Sept. 2016; BBC 18 Dec. 2015). Sources indicate that Biafra is a region in the southeast of Nigeria (International Crisis Group 4 Dec. 2015; Newsweek 7 Dec. 2015). Newsweek indicates that the region is “mainly populated by the Igbo [Ibo] ethnic group” (7 Dec. 2015). Sources indicate that from 1967 until 1970, Nigeria fought a civil war against Biafran secessionists, in which more than one million people died (BBC 18 Dec. 2015; AFP 31 May 2016). Agence France-Presse (AFP) cites Uchenna Madu, the leader of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), another pro-Biafra group, as stating that the objective of pro-Biafran groups, including MASSOB and IPOB, is “a separate homeland for the Igbo people” (10 Apr. 2016).

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The prevalence of Hate Speech by Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in Nigeria and how it has affected governance has been a major concern to the government, citizens of Nigeria and researchers as well. IPOB has been linked or associated with various hate speeches via seminars, rallies, publications and broadcasts on Radio Biafra which have at a point or the other created chaos and disorderliness, thereby leading to disunity among ethnic groups and the nation at large. Hate speech has therefore become a tool of communication for IPOB targeted at a selected part of the government.

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(1). Who are the targets of IPOB hate speech?

(2). Who are the sources of IPOB hate speech?

(3). Which types of hate speech were presented by IPOB?

(4). What actions/deeds do the hate speeches call for?

1.4. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The first major objective of this study is to find out the targets of IPOB hate speeches. Who they are, why they are being targeted and what relationship exists between them and IPOB. This is to determine the personalities behind IPOB targets and the reason for being targeted.

Another purpose of this studies to examine the sources of IPOB hate speech. To examine their authenticity and reliability. And also to find out the kind and extent of influence these sources have on IPOB hate speeches.

Also, this study intends to examine the types of hate speeches presented by IPOB and the actions or deeds that these hate speeches call for as there is always a reason behind every action.

1.5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study is restricted to selected broadcasts by IPOB. The broadcasts will be selected randomly from Radio Biafra, market rallies, seminars and publications.

1.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study would be of immense importance to the government and the general public as it would reveal how hate speeches are being framed by IPOB and the reasons behind them. The study would also be of immense importance to students, researchers and scholars who are interested in the subject matter.

1.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Financial constraints: Insufficient fund was a major constraint to sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

Time constraints: Due to simultaneously engaging in this study with other academic work, this consequently cut down on the time devoted to the research work.

Tribalism: Being a Yoruba, it was a bit difficult to get favourable responses from Igbo respondents as they felt the research topic was antagonistic to the Igbo race.

1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS

HATE SPEECH: Hate Speech is a speech that attacks a person or group based on attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

IPOB: Indigenous People of Biafra; these are the original inhabitants and owners of the Lands and Communities of Biafra and Biafraland spanning centuries of tradition and historical ancient cultural ties.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Accurately labelling certain expressions as ‘hate speech can play an important role in advancing the values of dignity and equality which underpin international human rights law. However, too readily identifying expression as ‘hate speech’ should also be avoided, as its use can also have negative consequences. The term is highly emotive and can be abused to justify inappropriate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, in particular in cases of marginalized and vulnerable groups. For these reasons, some advocate alternative, more narrowly-defined, concepts, such as “dangerous speech” or “fear speech,” that focuses more on the propensity of expression to cause widespread violence. In some contexts, such as in resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council, the term “hate speech” is avoided in favour of more elaborate formulations such as “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” or “the spread of discrimination and prejudice,” or “incitement of hatred.” This perhaps demonstrates a reluctance to normalize, or give legitimacy, use of the expression ‘hate speech, given its status as a heavily contested term.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

The theory of the post-colonial state suffixes. At the point of decolonization, the predatory character of the Nigerian state had taken shape and the emerging elites conceived the nationalist struggle merely in terms of getting rid of alien rule and occupying the exalted positions of the Europeans in the civil service and other vocations (Ikejiani-Clark, 1996). The nationalists who inherited political power from Britain did not have control of the economy and implicitly, there was no ruling class except political elites, who had attained political positions because they had championed the struggle for self-determination (Fadakinte, 2013). Consequently, Nigeria becomes a neo-patrimonial state where party politics and weak democratic institutions persist (Adesote&Abimbola, 2014). Importantly, this character of the state accounted for the collapse of the First, Second and the defunct Third Republics. 11 Despite that the nationalists were conscious of the necessity to fuse political power and economic power, the indigenous dominant class who had ethnic and religious cleavages could not agree among themselves on the modus operandi for the socio-economic and political processes in Nigeria. Ethnicity becomes the ideology for economic survival amid scarce resources (Ake, 1981). The control of the state power by a particular ethnic group also means more wealth, more employment, more government establishments and more government appointments for members of that ethnic group at the expense of the others. Politics assumes a zero-sum nature, whereby gains and losses are fixed and absolute. The winner takes all at the expense of the complete loss of other actors and vice-versa (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944). Jega (2012) corroborated the above position and argued that elections in Nigeria have zero-sum character. This zero-sum character of elections leads to negative mobilization of communal (ethnic) feelings by politicians. This negative mobilization of the populace by political parties and politicians is based on the message that if the elections are free and fair then „our party‟ should win. The converse then is that if „our party‟ fails to win the election, then the elections were not free and fair. It is this negative mobilization and the hateful language with which it is done that leads to electoral violence in Nigeria. Collier (2010) rightly observed that anything that affects the prospects of power in Nigeria is contested bitterly, lawlessly and violently. Thus, the Nigerian political history between 1999 and 2015 becomes the history of electoral crises; after all, control of political power is the easiest avenue to wealth accumulation. Hence, strong individuals (ethnic nationalists and political leaders) and organizations (political party) block weak institutions such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from implementing extant electoral laws including the laws that abhor the use of hate 12 speech. Although the legal frameworks guiding electoral campaigns and public speeches have outlawed hate speech, individuals and organizations that breached such laws are rarely prosecuted and punished. This is because the institutions of the state cannot check reckless/injurious utterances in Nigeria.

2.3 CONCEPT OF HATE SPEECH

‘Hate speech is an emotive concept, and there is no universally accepted definition of it in international human rights law. Many would claim they can identify ‘hate speech’ where they see it, but the criteria for doing so are often elusive or contradictory. International and regional human rights instruments imply varying standards for defining and limiting ‘hate speech’: these variations are reflected in differences in domestic legislation. In everyday settings, the use of the term and meanings attached to it vary – as do calls for regulating it. This could explain much of the confusion around the term, and what it means for human rights. Many proposed definitions of ‘hate speech’ have been formulated in response to specific and perniciously discriminatory social phenomena or incidents. Definitions have also been adapted over time to address new situations, and to accommodate shifts in language, shifting understandings of equality, and the harms of discrimination, or developments in technology

Hate: the intense and irrational emotion of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards an individual or group, targeted because of their having certain – actual or perceived – protected characteristics (recognized under international law). “Hate” is more than mere bias, and must be discriminatory. Hate is an indication of an emotional state or opinion, and therefore distinct from any manifested action.

Speech: any expression imparting opinions or ideas – bringing an internal opinion or idea to an external audience. It can take many forms: written, non-verbal, visual or artistic, and can be disseminated through any media, including the internet, print, radio, or television. Put simply, ‘hate speech is any expression of discriminatory hate towards people: it does not necessarily entail a particular consequence. This lowest common denominator definition captures a very broad range of expression, including lawful expression. This definition, therefore, is too vague for use in identifying expression that may legitimately be restricted under inexpressionsl human rights law. Beyond these two basic elements, the meaning of ‘hate speech’ becomes more contested; some people argue that discriminatory hate by itself isn’t enough, and that more must be shown. Opinions on what constitutes ‘hate speech, and when it can be prohibited, vary widely, but include disagreement on the following elements: – What constitutes a protected characteristic for identifying an individual or group that is the targets of ‘hate speech’; – The degree of focus given to the content and tone of the expression; – The degree of focus given to harm caused; whether the expression is considered to be harmful in itself for being degrading or dehumanizing or is considered to have a potential or actual harmful consequence, such as: -inciting a manifested action against the target by a third person or group of people, such as violence; -causing an emotional response in the target, such as insult or distress; or-negatively affecting societal attitudes, by “spreading” or “stirring up” hatred; – The need for causation to be proven between the expression and the specified harm; – The need for any harm to be likely or imminent. – The need to advocate harm, implying that the speaker has intent for harm to occur, and public dissemination of the expression. Understanding of what ‘hate speech’ means can therefore fall anywhere between the lowest common denominator definition and one incorporating varying combinations of the above factors. At the same time, definitions are often ambiguous regarding one or more of these details, allowing flexibility for identifying ‘hate speech in its various manifestations, creating uncertainty and disagreement over what constitutes ’hate speech.

References

Achebe, C. (2012) There was a country: A personal history of Biafra. London: Penguin Group.

Adesote, A. &Abimbola, J. (2014) “Electoral violence and the survival of democracy in Nigeria‟s Fourth Republic: A historical perspective”, Canadian Social Science 10 (3): 140-148.

Adibe, J. (2015) “Fayose‟s advert: Offensive or hate speech?”Adapted from a paper presented at a roundtable on hate speech organized by The Kukah Centre, Abuja, on 27 January.

Ake C (1981) A political economy of Africa. Ibadan: Longman.

Aniekwe, C. &Kushie J (2011) Electoral violence situational analysis: Identifying hot-spots in the 2011 general elections in Nigeria. Published by National Association for Peaceful Elections in Nigeria (NAPEN).

Aremu F. &Omotola J. S. (2007) “Violence as threats to democracy in Nigeria under the Fourth Republic, 1999–2003”, African and Asian Studies 6 (1–2): 53–79.

Azikiwe, N. (1980) Ideology for Nigeria: Capitalism, socialism or welfarism? Lagos: MacMillan Nigeria Publishers Ltd. Campbell, J. (2010) “Electoral violence in Nigeria”, Contingency Planning Memorandum, No. 9.