Volume 2 (April), 2019: 15 – 30. LANGUAGE AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN NIGERIA’S FOURTH REPUBLIC: HATE SPEECH DIMENSION

Language and the Electoral Process in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Hate Speech Dimension

By

Rosenje, Musharafa Olapeju

Department of Political Science and Public Administration,

Babcock University,

Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State.

E-mail: pejurose@yahoo.co.uk

Aina, Daniel Ayandiji PhD

Department of Political Science and Public Administration,

Babcock University,

Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State.

Mavalla, Gimba Ayuba PhD

Department of Political Science and Public Administration,

Babcock University,

Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State.

Abstract

The use of language in the electoral process of most developed democracies exhibits decorum and impacts positively on political campaigns and peaceful conduct of elections. In many developing and emerging democracies of Africa, the use of language in electioneering campaigns is characterised by hate speeches. This trend has generated a lot of concern to analysts because of the danger it portends to democratic stability. This paper examined hate speech and the electoral process in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. It adopted the descriptive method, made use of data gathered through secondary source and content analysis. The paper posited that language is crucial to the success of the electoral process. However, the use of hate speeches in electioneering campaigns has often generated heat in the polity, which engendered violence of serious magnitude, resulting in loss of lives and wanton destruction of properties, thus affecting the quality of elections and democracy. The findings of the paper indicate that hate speeches in electioneering campaigns are antithetical to peaceful conduct of elections, sustenance of democracy and stability of the polity. The paper concluded that the use of hate speeches by the political elite in their electioneering campaigns accentuated electoral violence in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. It was recommended that politicians who violate relevant laws on political campaigns should be made to face the wrath of the law. Also, the media should be more alive to its responsibility to the state by ensuring that reportage of electioneering campaigns is carried out in compliance with relevant laws, and any media outfit that violates such laws on political campaigns should be sanctioned.

Keywords:     Electioneering campaigns, Electoral process, Electoral violence, Hate speeches, Language and Nigeria’s Fourth Republic

Introduction

Language is as old as the society and has been used by man for numerous activities such as economic transactions, religious worship, social interactions, the political process, among others. Essentially, it is perceived as an instrument of communication – of ideas, commands and directives. Obuh and Omenogor (2012) averred that it could be used to scatter, condemn, generate violence, entertain, inspire, educate, establish cordial relationship, settle disputes and make peace with people or communities. The role it plays in politics could, however, not be underestimated. It is a fundamental weapon of sensitisation, mass mobilisation and political participation. It is equally a means of political communication, which could engender political stability, polarisation, conflict or outright war. Thus, it can sustain or truncate democracy. While expatiating on the role of language in politics, Opeibi (2004, cited in Okafor and Alabi, 2017) had this to say:

political thoughts and ideologies can only be expressed and further translated into social actions for social change and social continuity through the facilities provided by language…One can further assert that since language is dynamic in nature and politics itself is a dynamic process, the social roles of language, especially in serving as a tool to mobilise the people to support political candidates show how language can contribute to the realisation of political goals (p. 62).  

In every political environment, where the effectiveness of electioneering campaigns and the contest for political power rest on the ability to convince people and win political support, language plays a dominant role in mobilising electorate and garnering votes. It is the mechanism the political elite, political parties and candidates use to meaningfully explain the programmes of their parties. In other words, language is an instrument used in political campaigns to articulate what they intended to do when they get to power. In the Nigerian political space, electioneering campaigns have always been dominated by hate speeches, which often initiate tension that deepens political contradictions. Thus during campaigns and political rallies of the pre-election time, the conduct of election as well as the post-election practices, political actors resort to using highly inflammatory statements, which is akin to beating the drums of war thereby heightening the already tensed political atmosphere without taking cognisance of the fact that such trends could impact negatively on the electoral process and pose a danger to democratic governance.

Though a lot of mechanisms have been put in place by stakeholders to discourage the use of hate speeches in the Nigerian electoral process, they seem to be ineffective. For instance, Section 95 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which regulates political campaigns clearly stipulates the guidelines for political campaigns. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act provide that:

1.      A political campaign or slogan shall not be tainted with abusive language directly or indirectly to injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings;

2        Abusive, intemperate, slanderous or base language or insinuations or innuendoes designed or likely to provoke violent reactions or emotions shall not be employed or used in political campaigns.

In spite of the provisions of the law, a lot of people still circumvent the regulations and engaged in hate speeches during electioneering campaigns while overzealous media outfits published such utterances for the people to read thereby causing a lot of crises. In view of the prevalence of the phenomenon of hate speeches in Nigerian politics, the paper investigates its effect on the electoral process of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.

Conceptualising Language, Hate Speech and the Electoral Process Explained

Language is a means of defining an ethnic group, organising people and directing their behaviour (Ayeomoni & Akinkuolere, 2012). Language is used by people for various reasons such as to persuade, dissuade or even criticise. In the light of this, language could be used to promote peace and unity. In other words, its role in news casting, reportage, editorials and making commentaries on political and electoral issues and in times of crises is indispensable to the survival or otherwise of the nation.

Since language is a dynamic and indispensable tool of political communication, semantic analysis is crucial to understanding the effect of hate speech on the electoral process. This will enable us to determine if the state would incessantly be engulfed in crises or be at peace due to the meanings ascribed to words or concepts and its usage in discourse. Language is fundamental to political communication and peaceful co-existence and could, therefore, not be underestimated, especially when one considers the fact that the language used in the media often carries cultural and ideological values. This accounts for Ayoade’s (1982) submission that language is the conveyor belt of power which moves people to vote, debate or revolt. Beard (2000) posited that:

political campaigns, with their speeches, their written texts, their broadcasts, need to inform and instruct voters about issues that are considered to be of great importance; ultimately all the written and spoken texts that are produced during an election campaign are designed to persuade people to do one thing: to vote in a certain way ( p, 57).

Within the context of electioneering campaign and political rallies, it is instructive to note that language and semantics are inseparable. Semantics is a term used to describe the study of meanings. It is the study of meaning communicated through language (Saeed, 2003, cited in Aderinoye & Medubi, 2012). Since meaning is part of language, semantics should also be regarded as part of linguistics (Palmer, 1996, cited in Aderinoye and Medubi, 2012).  Semantics could be understood from the prism of analysing meanings of words or concepts as they are accepted and used in every community. This notion is encapsulated in Palmer’s (1996) explication on semantics, thus:

Semantics is a set of studies of the use of language in relation to many different aspects of experience, to linguistic and non-linguistic context, to participants in discourse, to their knowledge and experience, to the conditions under which a particular bit of language is appropriate (p. 206, cited in Aderinoye & Medubi, 2012, p. 550).

From the above explication, it could be asserted that language is crucial to electioneering campaigns. It is the medium through which the political parties and candidates put their manifestoes and programmes across to the electorate and canvass for votes during elections. The extent to which they could gain support at elections is a function of their effective use of language.

Hate Speech

Hate speech is regarded as any speech, song, gesture, conduct, writing or display or publication which could incite people into violence. Neisser (1994, cited in Ezeibe, 2015) conceived it as “all communications, whether verbal, written or symbolic that insults a race, ethnic and political group, whether suggesting that they are inferior in some respect or by indicating that they are despised or not welcomed for any other reasons” (p. 4). To Kayambazinthu and Moyo (2002) hate speeches are regarded as war waged on others by means of words.  It is intended to demean, dishonour, demonise political opponents and rob them of their dignity in order to acquire or retain power. In the same vein, Adibe (2015) described hate speech as the:

speech that employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatise others on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. It is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. There are individuals and groups in this country who openly relish the freedom to rain insults and profile others by appropriating to themselves the role of ethnic and religious champions. The problem is that hate speech is often the gateway to discrimination, harassment and violence as well as a precursor to serious harmful criminal acts. It is doubtful if there will be hate-motivated violent attacks on any group without hate speech and the hatred it purveys (cited in Akubor, 2015, p. 3).

            In concurrence to the above perception, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013) notes that hate speech includes:

      (a) all dissemination of ideas based on racial or ethnic superiority or hatred, by whatever means; (b) incitement to hatred, contempt or discrimination against members of a group on grounds of their race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin; (c) threats or incitement to violence against persons or groups on the grounds in (b) above; (d) expression of insults, ridicule or slander of persons or groups or justification of hatred, contempt or discrimination on the grounds in (b) above, when it clearly amounts to incitement to hatred or discrimination; and (e) participation in organizations and activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination (p. 4).

            From the foregoing, hate speeches could be regarded as various categories of expressions that are based on racial, ethnic and religious connotation and created out of hatred and intentionally meant to injure the psyche, insult or ridicule the concerned individual or group of people as to initiate in them the aggression that might lead to violence. Invariably, it is a form of language expression that is directed towards achieving an end.

Electoral Process

Electoral process is a complex process encompassing a lot of activities and involving several institutions. Rosenje and Moliki (2008) averred that:

it consists of the constitution of the election management body, party formation and regulation, delimitation of electoral constituencies, voters’ registration, location of voting centres/polling booths, electioneering campaigns, allocation and distribution of voters cards distribution of ballot papers to the various polling booths on election day, the conduct of elections and the resolution of election disputes at the election tribunals and appellate courts in substantial compliance with the electoral laws (p. 146).

                  To Akamere (2001), electoral process refers to all the activities and procedures involved in the election of representatives by the electorates. It refers to all the pre and post election activities without which an election is meaningless. These include the registration of political parties, review of voters’ register, delineation of constituencies, resolution of electoral disputes, return of elected representatives, swearing elected representatives.

 In the same vein, INEC (2006, cited in Nnamani, 2014, p. 80) outlines different phases of the electoral process as follows:

(i)                 Delimitation of electoral constituencies

(ii)              Registration of voters

(iii)            Notice of elections

      (iv)             Nomination of candidates

(iv)             Election campaigns

(v)               Elections, announcement of results and completing tribunal sittings

(vi)             Participation of other organizations

(vii)          Resolution of electoral conflicts from the participation and other organizations or groups.

 In a nutshell, electoral process is a complex process that encompasses all aspects of election administration. It thus commences with the announcement of intention to conduct elections till the time when elections have been acknowledged won and invariably lost.

Theoretical Framework                                                                                                                  

This paper adopts the Critical Race Theory (CRT) to explain the phenomenon of hate speech. It provides a credible template by which media concepts and hate speech can be explained and understood. This theory grew up in the mid-1970s as a reaction of some activists and scholars, especially lawyers to the existing relations to race, racism and power. The leading exponents of the theory are Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado (Delgado, 2017) Its origin is rooted on the insights of critical legal studies and conventional civil rights scholarship, with particular reference to radical feminism. It also draws extensively from certain European philosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Jacques Derrida, as well as the American radical tradition exemplified by such personalities as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Power and Chicano movements of the sixties and early seventies (Delgado, 2012).

The theory does not only try to understand social situation of the society, but strives to change it; it sets out not only to ascertain how society organises itself along racial and even ethnic lines and hierarchies, but to also transform it for the better.  Its “social construction thesis”, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations and as such, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient. Hence, what is fundamental to the theory is the issue of discrimination with the concomitant domination that ensues from it in any socio--political environment. This occurrence is presumably designed to achieve a specific goal, of the perpetual domination of one social group, ethnic grouping or religious group over the other. 

According to Hintjens (1999, cited in Odera, 2015), CRT indicates that the media in Nigeria uses phrases sponsored by politicians that refer to other opposition groups from descriptions that are not merely rhetorical but pedestals on which hate flourishes. Therefore, theoretically, critical race theory underscores that violent political rhetoric can produce the same psychological dynamics as violent entertainment (Calvert, 1997 cited in Rasaq, Udende, Ibrahim & Oba, 2017).

Critical race theory holds that It is instructive to point out that the gate-keeping role of the media in the selection of items for publication and broadcasting has an objective to achieve. In such process, editors, newsroom staff and broadcasters play a dominant role in shaping the political-news items being presented. Consequently, readers learn not only about given issues but how much importance to attach to those issues from the amount of information in a news story and its direction. In such a situation, critical race theory is used to support a legal-structural response to hate speech. It aims to transform the relationship among race, law, and power. CRT recognises that the vested interests of the political elite shape racial and ethnic stratification as well as political differences.

Overview of Electoral Process in Nigeria

A lot has happened within Nigeria’s electoral process since independence in 1960. In actual fact, Nigeria has conducted ten general elections since independence – elections of 1964 of the first republic, 1979 and 1983 of the second republic, the 1993 of the aborted third republic and the 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019 elections of the fourth republic. It is important to note that the post- independence government of the first republic was parliamentary in nature. Since the introduction of the 1946 constitution and its characteristic feature of regionalism; Nigerian politics has resorted to tribalism with its regional hegemony (Awa, 1964). The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) controlled the Northern region; National Council for Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC) held sway in the Eastern region and Action Group (AG) had overwhelming majority in the Western region.  In order to secure foothold in regions outside their control they built opposition movements, thus creating a tensed political environment which led to conflagration.

In the 1962-1964 political imbroglio, cross-carpeting and intimidation was injected into the electoral process of South-west Nigeria. The elections were conducted under the auspices of political alliances such as Nigerian National Alliance, an offshoot of Northern People’s Congress under Sardauna of Sokoto and Nigeria National Democratic Party (NNDP) of Chief Akintola, while AG of Alhaji Adegbenro contested the elections in alliance with the NCNC led by Dr. Okpara, Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) under the aegis of United Progressive Grand Alliance. During the electioneering campaigns that preceded the 1964 general elections, incumbent regional governments disallowed the opposition parties from campaigning in their jurisdiction (Nnadozie, 2007).

The Second Republic of 1979 was ushered in with five registered political parties, Great Nigeria People’s party (GNPP), National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Nigeria People’s Party (NPP), People’s Redemption Party (PRP), Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) while the Nigeria Advance Party (NAP) was registered before the holding of 1983 elections. However, all these parties were reincarnation of First Republic political parties. While the NPN grew out of the cocoon of the NPC and commanded large followership from the North, the UPN under Chief Awolowo, which emerged from the Action Group dominated the Yoruba enclave, NPP shortly after registration split into two political parties GNPP and NPP were from the political base of NCNC. The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) was a reincarnation of Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), but the Nigeria Advance party has no regional base in Nigeria.

Invariably, all the political parties including the NPN could not adequately meet the requirements of the constitution, and as such none of them could be truly regarded as national party in the true spirit of the constitution (Kaur, 2002). All the parties registered with FEDECO simply had formal requirement as reflected in the election results.  For instance, UPN clinched South-west, NPP secured South-east, PRP took the lead in the old Kano and Kaduna states while GNPP emerged victorious in Bornu and Rivers (Osaghae 1998). Political violence characterised the 1979 and 1983 general elections. In 1999, with the ushering in of the new wave of civilian rule, Nigeria’s electoral process came on wheel again with the election of President Obasanjo under the banner of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), an office he held for eight years (1999-2007).

During Obasanjo’s tenure, elections were bitterly contested due to the gains accruable from holding of political office as a result of the predatory nature of the post-colonial state. The predatory nature of the post-colonial African states, more especially the character of the Nigerian political elite, which places high premium on political power as an instrument of plundering state resources, makes the political elite to see politics as a zero-sum game characterised by winner-takes-all syndrome thereby turning African politics into a do-or-die affair (Anifowose, 2011).  Ake (1996, cited in Omotola, 2011) thus argued that post-colonial African states (including Nigeria) could not behave differently because by nature, they are fundamentally predatory. This is due to the fact that, in African states, Nigeria inclusive, high value is placed on political power because the control of state power is usually used by the incumbent office holder to amass wealth and “those (the political elite) who win state power can have all the wealth they want even without working” (Ake, 1996, p. 24, cited in Omotola, 2011, p. 234).

      As a result of this situation, the electoral process was characterised by a lot of election malpractices, which consist of thuggery, intimidation, maiming, killing as well as assassination of political opponents and candidates. It also includes rigging of election, media inflammatory statements, snatching of ballot boxes, harassment of election monitoring observers, exploitation of ethnic and religious divides as well as maximising the culture of impunity (IFES-Nigeria, 2007). Human Rights report gave a vivid account of political killings, bombings and armed clashes that occurred between supporters of rival political factions and parties (Human Rights Watch, 2007). Beside the PDP, the incumbent government that was interested in holding on to power, there were signs that the other parties, more especially, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) worked hard to displace the PDP. The ACN fielded Mallam Nuhu Ribadu while the CPC put forward Muhammadu Buhari (Africa Report, 2007).

By 2011 elections, the signals were rife indicating that the elections would be violently contested. Even both the 2015 and 2019 elections witnessed series of violence among political parties and candidates, especially during the electioneering campaigns. A cursory examination of the political parties, especially the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) revealed a high-level intra-party strife, signaling the tendency for anti-party activities, disintegration and violence. Campbell (2010) argued that the party has no internal discipline, cohesion. This situation inevitably gave birth to party conflict and defection. Some factions of the political elite, mostly from the North are very disgruntled with the power equation in PDP and were not willing to surrender to the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan as the PDP flag bearer. This trend of disagreement and political calculations, they contended, would no doubt threaten the chances of PDP. In view of this realisation, Campbell (2010) asserted further that a divided PDP poses a challenge to security and stability of Nigeria. In a nutshell, the electoral process in Nigeria from independence till date has experienced a lot of turmoil, crises and violence, while had not only tainted the electoral process but has equally brought about loss of human lives, destruction of invaluable properties and untold hardship on the people.

Language and the Electoral Process

In every electoral process, language has always been the vehicle of political communication. The success of electioneering campaigns is dependent on the effective use of language. Language may therefore, be used positively or negatively depending on the objective to be achieved. When it is used with decorum and decency, it promotes harmony, good neighbourliness and peaceful co-existence. However, if it is to the contrary, it assumes the posture of hate speech, which provokes anger and acrimony that could degenerate into conflict and violence of gargantuan dimension.

The role of hate speeches in Africa’s electoral violence has been documented. Notable examples are the 2007 post-electoral violence in Kenya and the 2011 post-electoral violence in Nigeria (Chedotun, Cheserek & Arusei, 2013). In 2009, Kenya Uhuru Kenyatta and William Rotho, President and Deputy President of Kenya respectively were indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity for their alleged role in escalating the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya in which hate speech played significant role. Investigation revealed that hate speeches were disseminated through SMS messages on mobile phones. Those relayed on radio and television stations, as well as online also fanned the embers of hatred which resulted into the violence witnessed in these countries. Instances of hate speeches orchestrated by the political leaders and relayed on radio stations without any restraint thereby fanning embers of ethnic feelings and tension in Kenya are expressed thus:

  We say no more innocent Kikuyu blood will be shed. We will slaughter them right here in the capital city. For justice, compile a list of Luos and Kalus you know at work or in your estates, or elsewhere in Nairobi, plus where and how their children go to school. We will give you number to text this information (CRHS, 2013, p. 6).

The use of hate speech in Nigeria’s electoral process dates back to the colonial era, but the British colonial masters’ firm grip on the country enabled it to manage its negative manifestations. At the attainment of Nigeria’s political independence in 1960, the political elite of the First Republic fiercely employed hate speeches against their political opponents for advantage. Instances of the hate speeches used by the political leaders across regional boundaries are epitomised thus:

Karoju kaku, karoju kaku

Kaka ka dobale fun Gambari

Karoju kaku

Literaly implying:

Sum up courage to commit suicide

Sum up courage to commit suicide

Instead of surrendering politically

To the Hausa/Fulani

This development in no small measure helped in heating up the polity in the First Republic and invariably laid the foundation for the 1964/65 electoral violence, more especially in the Western region. During the Second Republic, the use of hate speeches became more pronounced to the extent that it became commonplace in every political campaign and was prevalent among the two dominant political parties, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and their leaders. An instance of the chanting of abusive and provocative songs, and violence-prone lyrics echoed as:    

                         E roju ole e o fura,

                                                 E roju ole e o fura

                                                 Omo yin o sagba fo

                                                 Oun kaso wale

                                                 E roju ole e o fura!

Literally translated as:

Behold the face of a rogue!

Behold the face of a rogue!

It does not show any suspicion

Your son does not engage in laundry services

Yet, he comes home daily with expensive dresses!

Whenever such songs are rendered, the supporters of the opposition, most especially party thugs and their allies are psychologically incited and retaliated in violent manner. More importantly, media reports of such statements provoke revenge from the opposing group thus bringing about a vicious circle of violence. The events associated with the 1965 Western regional election and the general elections of 1983 are clear testimonies of the crucial role played by the media in inciting the psyche of the people to electoral violence in Nigeria.

Perhaps it is in the Fourth Republic electoral process that hate speeches have become a pervasive phenomenon. The two major contending political parties, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) were deeply engrossed in the phenomenon, with the various media outfits pitching their tents with parties of their choice. In his analysis of the connection between hate speech and electoral violence, Jega and Ibeanu (2007) argued that there is a strong relationship between campaign of calumny (hate speech) and electoral violence and as far as history is concerned, elements of this have characterised elections in Nigeria.

Hate Speech and the Electoral Process in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic

In developing countries, the phenomenon of ethnic, religious and politically-related violence seems to be recurrent. As such, numerous studies have been conducted about the post-election violence but little has been done in recent time to investigate the connection between hate speech and electoral violence.

The practice of democracy is anchored on the principles of freedom of speech and expression. This democratic feature is aptly demonstrated during electioneering campaigns. Grace (2015) emphasised that in electoral politics, campaigns have become an instrument used by political leaders and candidates’ jostling for elective offices to secure the votes of the electorate. This position was supported by Segun (2015) who asserted that hate and divisive speeches dominate political rallies as such campaigns heat up the political space already notorious for its violence. However, unlike in many developed democracies, where there is decorum and decency in the use of language during campaigns, the Nigerian political space is usually pervaded by hate speeches.

The media, which is concerned with news coverage and reportage, has often been seen as a tool for advocating and ensuring peace. This is one of the many roles the media play in the society as prescribed by the social responsibility theory. In fact, the media is traditionally regarded as the conscience of the society. However, in Nigeria today, media practitioners tend to shy away from their expected social responsibility as peacemakers and serve as instrument of promoting disunity and triggering hatred among the members of the society (Ali 2013).

In contemporary era, the trend in media practice in the country is the dissemination of hate speech. Sometimes such are quoted verbatim from interviews, press statements, advertorials of the political class. A case in point is the 2015 general elections where some media outfits in Nigeria, such as AIT, Channels, Thisday, Vanguard and The Nation, broadcast and published campaign items which contained hate speeches (Olowojolu 2016). Despite its prohibition as contained in the media codes of ethics such as the Nigerian Media Code of Election Coverage, hate speeches continued to dominate the media space.

Again, Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended in 2011 provides that “every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression….”  Section 45 also provides that nothing in section 39 shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order, public morality and for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.

In the same manner, sections 95 and 96 of the 2010 Electoral Act prohibited the use of any language in campaigns that will hurt tribal, religious and/or sectional feelings. Apart from the Electoral Act, the Political Party Code of Conduct (2013) contains provisions that prohibit foul or abusive language and expressions of hate by political parties in Nigeria. Paragraph 7 of the instrument specifically provides that:

“No political party or candidate shall during campaign resort to the use of inflammatory language, provocative actions, images or manifestation that incite violence, hatred, contempt or intimidation against another party or candidate or any person or group of persons on grounds of ethnicity or gender or for any other reason. Accordingly, no political party or candidate shall issue any poster, pamphlet, leaflet or other publication that contains any such incitement”.

Other legal framework that abhorred the use of derogatory language in Nigeria was the Abuja Peace Accord (2015). However, in spite of these legal frameworks, the use of hate speech became pronounced before, during and after the 2011 and 2015 elections in Nigeria. In fact, instances of hate speech have been published in print and electronic media, as well as social media, and preached in churches and mosques.

In Nigeria, the phenomenon of hate speech is thick in the air (Ugbechie, 2017) implying that the contest for political power among the contending political elite, parties and candidates in the electoral process of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic is bedevilled by it. This is exemplified by the hate speeches that pitched the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the All Progressive Congress (APC) in the 2015 campaigns that heralded the election of President Muhammadu Buhari into office. Both parties were harsh in the use of inflammatory statements against each other and even their candidates, possibly with a view to provoking different ethno-religious groups against each party’s candidates. This is why Ukwueze and Uche (2015, cited in Fasakin, Oyero, Oyesomi and Okorie, 2017) who reported the 2015 General Elections in Nigeria, stated that many political watchers, local and international observers and of course the entire citizenry were disturbed by the spate of hate speeches that dominated the political campaign messages and adverts of the two main political parties.

It is worth mentioning that the phenomenon of hate speech was designed to achieve the vested interest of the competing political elite. Elucidating on the effects of hate speech, Leets (2002 cited in  Alakali, Faga and Mbursa, 2017) opined that it is meant to violate the dignity of the individual thus resulting in humiliation, distress and psychological or emotional pain. In the same vein, Nemes (2002) contended that hate speech can provoke pain, distress, fear, embarrassment and alienation to individuals. He stated further that hate speech towards groups of people engender inequality and alienation thus creating the feeling of fear and discouraging them from participating in politics. Corroborating this perception, Nielsen, (2002) posited that the degradation and humiliation brought by hate speech can silence the ‘victims’ and therefore, reinforce existing hierarchies in society. To Parekh (2006), this phenomenon can also lead victims to become aggressive and dangerous.

Some of such statements employed by Nigerian political elite during electioneering campaigns in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Selected Hate Speeches in Newspapers/Magazines

S/N	Newspaper/ Magazines	Date	Author of Speech	Hate  Speech
1.	Guardian	2nd November, 2010.	Dr. Muhammed Junaidu	It must be a Northerner or no Nigeria… If Goodluck wins the PDP endorsement to contest the 2011 presidential election, there will be violence.
2.	Leadership	29th March, 2012.	Dr. Muhammed Junaidu	Unless efforts are made to ensure that the 2015 elections are free and fair, it may turn out to be the last election in the history of the nation.
3.	Vanguard	15th May, 2012.	Presidential Candidate of APC Muhammadu Buhari	If what happened in 2011 should happen again in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood.
4.	Daily Independent	8th March, 2013.	Abu King Shuluba	Nigeria will disintegrate if Jonathan contests in 2015
5.	Vanguard	5th May, 2013.	Mujahid Asari Dokubo	No peace, if Jonathan loses in 2015.
6.	Daily Trust	6th May, 2013.	Mujahid Asari Dokubo	No peace, if Jonathan loses in 2015.
7.	The Sun	1st December, 2013.	Dr. Muhammed Junaidu	2015: There will be bloodshed if Jonathan runs, warns Junaid Muhammed.
8.	ThisDay	8th January, 2014.	President Goodluck Jonathan	APC: Nigeria’s Muslim Brotherhood, a party of bloodthirsty, religious and ethnic bigots averse to the unity of the country
9.	Express News	4th March, 2014.	Patience Jonathan, wife of former President	Wetin him dey find again? Him dey drag with him pikin mate, old man wey no get brain, him brain don die patapata-What is Buhari looking for? Old man that does not know his age. His brain is completely dead.
10.	Express News	3rd May, 2014.	Mujahid Asari Dokubo	2015 is more than do-or-die. You are a man and I am a man, we are going to meet at the battlefield.
11.	Tell	7th July, 2014.	Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu	It is going to be rig and roast. We are prepared, not to go to court but to drive you out…
12.	The Punch	17th July, 2014.	Godswill Akpabio (former governor of Akwa-Ibom state)	Those who want to take power through the back door will die. They will die.
13.	Vanguard	15th October, 2014.	Northern Elders Forum	Those who vote for Jonathan and the PDP in 2015 will be considered an enemy of the North
14.	The Nation	15th March, 2015.	Patience Jonathan, wife of former President	Anybody who come and tell you change, stone that person… What you did not do in 1985, it is now that old age has caught up with you that you want to come and change… You cannot change rather you will turn back to a baby

Sources: International Crisis Group (2014); Ezeibe (2015)

In order to ensure conducive atmosphere for electioneering campaigns and peaceful conduct of elections, stakeholders should strive to discourage the use of hate speeches in Nigeria’s electoral process. Achieving this feat will promote peace, harmony and unity and make electoral violence a thing of the past.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The paper concluded that the phenomenon of hate speech is prevalent in the electoral process of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic and that there is a connection between the hate speeches of the electioneering campaigns and the recurrent electoral violence that characterises Nigeria’s political landscape. In addition, it avers that many perpetrators have not been effectively sanctioned to serve as deterrence to others because of lack of strong institutions and political will on the part of the leadership.

                  It is recommended that ethically-inclined media organisations and media practitioners should collectively mobilise and sensitise the public to the adverse effect of hate speech as part of their civic responsibility in order to ensure peaceful conduct of elections and enhance democratic stability. Also, individuals and media outfits that violate relevant laws regulating election campaigns should be sanctioned accordingly.

References

Aderinoye, A. R. A., & Medubi, O. C. (2012). “Meaning” in newspaper editorials: An essential    index of peaceful co-existence in Nigeria. In I. O. Albert, (Ed.). A history of social conflict and conflict management in Nigeria. A Festschrift for Professor ‘Biodun Adediran (p. 546-561). Ibadan: Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan.

Adibe, J. (2015, January). Fayose’s advert: Offensive or hate speech? Paper presented at a Roundtable on Hate Speech organised by the Kukah Centre, Abuja.

African Report (2007): “Internet watch: the 2007 presidential election in Nigeria”

www.opennet.net/research/bulletin/014.

Ake, C. (1996). Democracy and development in Africa. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Akubor, E. O. (2015). Campaigns and electioneering: Reflecting on the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. Paper presented at the two-day National Conference on The 2015 General Elections in Nigeria: The Real Issues organised by The Electoral Institute (TEI), held between 27th and 28th July.

Alakali, T. T., Faga, H. P. and Mbursa, J. (2017). Audience perception of hate speech and foul language in the Social Media in Nigeria: Implications for morality and law. Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 161-178

Ali, A. D. (2013). Media Role and the Hurdle of a Nigerian Journalist1984-1999. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2 (9). pp. 1-13.

Anifowose, R. (2011). Violence and politics in Nigeria: The Tiv, Yoruba and Niger Delta Experience (3rd ed.) Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publication.

Awa (1964): The Federal Government of Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ayeomoni, O. M. & Akinkuolere, O. S. (2012) A pragmatic analysis of victory and inaugural speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar‟Adua. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,(2) 3, 461-468

Ayoade, J. A. (1982) Criteria and constraints of conceptual and terminological analysis: An African perspective. In F.W. Riggs (Ed), Proceedings of the conference on conceptual and terminological analysis in the social sciences. Frankfurt: Indeks Verlag.

Beard, A (2000) the language of politics. New York: Routledge Chapman.

Calvert, C. (1997), Hate Speech and its harms: A communicative perspective. Journal of Communication, 47, 4-19.

Campbell, J. (2010) “Electoral violence in Nigeria”, Contingency Planning Memorandum, No. 9.

Cheldotum, K., Cheserek, G. J., & Arusei, E. J. (2013). Causes and effects of post-election violence on agricultural production in Kesses Division,Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. Journalof Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS), 4(1), 62-67

Deigado, R. & Stefanic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3^rd ed.) New York & London: New York University Press.

Deigado, R. & Stefanic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2^nd ed.) New York & London: New York University Press.

Ezeibe, C. (2015) Hate speech and Electoral Violence in Nigeria: A paper submitted to the Department of Political Science University of Nigeria Nsukka

Fasakin, A., Oyero, O., Oyesomi, K & Okorie, N. (2017). Use of hate speeches in television political campaign. Proceedings of SOCIOINT 2017- 4th International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities 10-12 July 2017- Dubai, UAE

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010) The Electoral Act. Lagos, Nigeria: The Federal Government Printer Mey,

Grace, I. (2015). Political Advert Campaigns and Voting Behaviour: A Study of Akinwunmi Ambode’s Election Ad Campaigns in Lagos State. A paper submitted to the Mass Communication Department, National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), Lagos state, Nigeria.

Hintjens, H. M. (1999). ‘Explaining the 1994 genocide in Rwanda’. The Journal of Modern African Studies 37 (2) 241-286.

Human Right Watch (2007) Nigeria: Presidential election marred by fraud and violence. Retrieved from www.hrw.org on 24th April, 2007.

IFES-Nigeria (2007): “Electoral Reform in Nigeria”

www.ifes.org/Publications/2007/Apr/ElectoralReforminNigeria.

INEC (2006): “Building Confidence in the Electoral System” Abuja: Independent National Electoral Commission.

Jega, A. & Ibeanu, O. (2007). Elections and the future of democracy in Nigeria. Lagos: Nigeria Political Science Association.

Kaur S (2002): “Challenges of Democratic Sustenance in Nigeria” A paper presented at the Center for Democracy and Development Lagos July 8 under the auspices of the South-South Exchange Program.

Kayambazinthu, E., & Moyo, F. (2002). Hate speech in the new Malawi. In H. Englund (Ed.), A democracy of chameleon: Politics and culture in the new Malawi (pp. 87-102). Blantyre: Claim..

Leets, L. (1999). A cultural perspective on racist speech harm. Paper presented at the 49^th International Communication Association, San Francisco.

Neisser, E. (1994). Hate speech in the New South Africa: Conceptual consideration for a land recovering from decades of rational repression and violence. South African Journal of Human Rights, 10, 333-356.

Nemes, I. (2002). Regulating Hate Speech in Cyberspace: Issues of Desirability and Efficacy. Information & Communications Technology Law. 11(3).

Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Subtle, Pervasive, Harmful: Racist and Sexist Remarks in Public as Hate Speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, ( 2).

Nnadozie, U. (2007): “History of Elections in Nigeria” in Jega, A and Ibeanu, O. (eds.) Elections and the Future of Democracy in Nigeria. (NPSA).

Nnamani, D. O., (2014). Electoral Process and Challenges of Good Governance in the Nigerian State (1999-2011) Journal of Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Africa (JGGSDA), 2 (3), 78-99

Obuh, E. I. & Omenogor, H.D. (2012) Language and communications as instrument of conflict resolution in Nigeria. NATECEP Journal of English and Communication Studies. 8:69-76

Odera, E. I. (2015). Radio and hate speech: A comparative study of Kenya 2007 and the 1994 Rwanda genocide. (Master’s Thesis, The University of Nairobi) Retrevied from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/93846/Odera_.

Okafor, V. C & Alabi, T. O. (2017). A speech act analysis of hate speeches in the 2015 general election campaign in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature (IJRHAL) 5 (6). pp. 61-72

Olowojolu, Olakunle. (2016) Role of Media in 2015 Presidential Election in Nigeria. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance.  7 (7) pp.1-12.

Omotola, J. S. (2011). Explaining electoral violence in Africa’s ‘new’ democracies. doi: 10.4314/ajcr.v10i3.63320.

Opeibi, B. O. (2004) A discourse analysis of the use of English in 1993 presidential election campaign in Nigeria.Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Lagos.

Osaghae, E. (1998): Crippled giant: Nigeria since independence. London: Hurst and Company.

Palmer, F. R. (1996). Semantics. London: Cambridge University.

Parekh, B. (2006). Hate Speech: Is There a Case for Banning? Public Policy Research.

Rasaq, A., Udende, P., Ibrahim, A. & Oba, L. (2017). Media, politics, and hate speech: A critical discourse analysis e-Academia Journal 6 (1), 240-252 (http://journaleacademiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html)

Rosenje, M. O. & Moliki, A. O. (2008). The nexus between census and electoral process in Nigeria: Implications for the sustenance of democracy. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences 10 pp. 143-154.

Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. London: Blackwell.

Segun, O. (2015). Nigerian 2015 elections and the Internet of hate. Retrieved from http://itedgenews.com/2015/01/20/nigerian-2015-elections-and-the-internet-of-hate/ on 7th March, 2017.

Ugbechie, K. (2017). Hate speech is not free speech. Nigeria Today. Retrieved from http://www.nigeriatoday.ng/2017/02/hatespeechisnotfreespeech/.

Ukwueze, C.I., & Uche, A. (2015, Sept-Oct). The Rise of hate and peace journalism in the Nigerian democratisation process: The place of the new media. Communication Panorama African and Global Perspective. 1(1) Maiden Issue.

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013). General recommendation on combating racist hate speech”, CERD/C/GC/35.