Hate speech, political intimidation: Is law equal for all?

As Nigerians await the outcome of the controversy surrounding an alleged hate speech by a senator in Osun State, fresh questions are being raised by a series of reported statements attributed to some members and officials of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Reports of alleged threats by a local government chairman in Abuja, another local government chairman in Borno State, a commissioner in Ebonyi State and a newly elected political office holder, warning or threatening citizens who may choose not to vote for the APC, should not be dismissed as ordinary political rhetoric.

Democracy is fundamentally about choice.

The right of a citizen to support a political party, candidate or ideology of his or her choice is one of the most important freedoms guaranteed in a democratic society. No political party, government official or elected representative should give the impression that citizens must support a particular party to remain accepted in their own communities.

This raises a serious question: where exactly is the line between political campaigning, hate speech, intimidation and a threat to citizens’ democratic rights?

Nigeria cannot afford a situation where inflammatory statements are condemned when made by political opponents but overlooked when they come from members of the ruling party. The credibility of our democratic institutions depends on consistency, fairness and equal application of the law.

If a statement constitutes hate speech, incitement, intimidation or a threat to public peace, the identity or political affiliation of the person who made it should be irrelevant. The appropriate authorities should examine the statement, establish the facts and, where necessary, apply the law.

The same standard must apply to everyone.
It is therefore legitimate to ask whether Nigeria’s laws and institutions are sufficiently sharp and independent in dealing with politically motivated hate speech and intimidation. Are the relevant agencies adequately responding to such statements?

Are they investigating them impartially? Or are Nigerians gradually becoming accustomed to a political culture in which powerful individuals believe that their positions or party affiliations place them beyond accountability?

The APC, as the governing political party, has an even greater responsibility to demonstrate that it respects democratic competition.

Winning elections does not confer ownership of citizens. Government officials are public servants, not proprietors of the communities they govern.

A citizen who chooses to vote for another party has committed no offence simply by exercising that constitutional right.

Political disagreement should be answered with persuasion, policies and performance—not threats, intimidation or suggestions that citizens should leave their homes because they refuse to support a particular political party.

This is bigger than the APC.

Tomorrow, another party may be in power. If we allow political intimidation to become normal today, we may eventually create a political environment in which every government feels entitled to threaten its opponents and supporters of rival parties.

That would be dangerous for Nigeria’s democracy.

The relevant authorities must therefore demonstrate that the law is not selective. Where allegations of hate speech, incitement or political intimidation are made, investigations should be prompt, transparent and impartial. Where wrongdoing is established, appropriate sanctions should follow, regardless of the person’s political status.

Nigerians are watching.
The question is not whether the APC is above the law. It is whether any Nigerian, politician or ordinary citizen, is above the law.

If the answer is no, then the institutions responsible for enforcing our laws must demonstrate it through their actions.

Democracy cannot survive on selective justice. It cannot flourish where citizens are afraid to exercise their right to choose.
The time has come for political leaders to understand that Nigeria belongs to all of us—not to any political party.

And the right to vote freely must remain exactly that: a right, not a privilege granted by those in power.