A Discourse Analysis on the use of Hate Speech among the Senior Federal Public Officials in Nigeria

Cite this article as: Sani G. & Musa K. (2024). A Discourse Analysis on the use of Hate Speech among the Senior Federal Public Officials in Nigeria. Proceedings of International Conference on Rethinking Security through the lens of Humanities for Sustainable National Development Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Pp. 185-198.

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF HATE SPEECH AMONG THE SENIOR FEDERAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN NIGERIA

By

Galadima Sani
Department of English and Literature
Federal University Gusau

And

Kabiru Musa
Department of English and Literature
Federal University Gusau

Abstract: The research analyses the use of hate speech among the senior federal public officials in Nigeria. The research aims to analyze the hate speech and propaganda in the present Nigeria societies, with the objectives of identifying the causes in the Nigerian senior public officials, the effects on the Nigerian society and journalism and the consequences on the media, morality, security, ethnics and law in the Nigerian society. The research selected thirty (30) people for interviews, comprises of six geo-political zones in Nigeria and subsequently five (5) elites from each geo-political zones were selected. In data collection, the research considers Christian and Islamic leaders, youth leaders, traditional leaders and civil society leaders. Van Dijk (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) theoretical framework was used for the analysis of speeches obtained from research data. Some of the findings include that of National Coordinator of Coalition of Northern Nigerian politicians, in which clearly implied that the speaker through a hate speech was promoting ethnic and religious tension. It is also eminent according to findings that, in some regions there are ungrateful kind of people who do not appreciate what others have done for them. In addition, threat of violence/ hate crime was revealed as seen from analysis that ‘God willing, by 2015, something will happen’. Furthermore, the use of political groups’ tension/ violence is eminent. Thus, government should take necessary actions for peace and unity in Nigeria.

Keywords: Hate speech, public officials, discourse, religion and peace.

Introduction

In many countries, most especially in the developing countries the political, ethnic and religious phenomenon related to violence seems to be recurrent. As a result of that, several studies have been carried out about the post-election violence but little has been devoted in recent time at analyzing the principal cause of this violence in relation to hate speech as well as the role of media. More so, given the power as well as significance of news journalism to modern society, it should come as no surprise that the discourse of newspapers has been, and continues to be, scrutinized.

Politics and the media have long been intimately involved with each other, with media strongly setting the agenda that politics is very important (Harris, 2008). In particular, print media have long been covered political campaigns, and the level of political rhetoric has sometimes been far more venomous most times. That is why across the world, election periods are marked with series of events that increase the tempo of the political environment. However, the situation is obvious in developing countries where electioneering is occurred.

Statement of the Problem

Today, Social media is serving as escape route to many people. In the society in which we live, so many people feel offended or violated because of the predicaments surrounding them in the society. Their plights see refuge in social media. The social media is a place they utter whatever pleases them without control by seemingly anybody. What serves as escape route for them became a way for them to humiliate others.

This research looks at some hate speeches by prominent Nigerians in politics and examines the Linguistic danger the speeches breed in the society, which they lead. People talk in the social media as if it is not another people that they are dehumanizing. They come out to contest for electoral positions and in their bid to gain cheap popularity say things that are detrimental to even themselves in the name of hate speeches.

The situation in which the Nigerian national dailies have become a medium for the dissemination of hate speech and foul languages is not only worrisome but also unethical. In Nigeria today, the quest for power and wealth as well as the selfish desires of some politicians to win election at all cost is overwhelmingly stronger than the will for the common good of the masses. The contest for political offices in Nigeria during the 2019 general elections was ferocious with some politicians making inciting remarks that could ignite violence and unrest. This was obvious in the speeches of the major dominant political parties in the Nigeria political scenario: The People Democratic Party (PDP) and the All-Progressive Congress (APC) and Labour Party (LP). The aspirants and parties’ supporters made inflammatory remarks and unguided expressions capable of tearing the nation apart. Therefore, the objectives of this research includes: investigate the causes of hate and foul language in the Nigerian senior public officials, the effects of hate speech on the Nigerian society and journalism. Most importantly, the research will also investigate the consequences of these practices on the media to morality, security, ethics and law on the Nigerian society.

Hate speech has received critical attention in recent time by researchers from different perspectives: feminism (Lilian, 2007); racism (Hernandez, 2011); hate speech in the media (Iroka, 2013; UNESCO, 2015; Ayegba, 2017; Abaya, 2019); electoral violence (Ezeibe, 2015; Waya, 2017; Okafor & Olanrewaju, 2017; Hauwa, 2022 and International Foundation of Electoral System (2018). Among the researches on hate speeches in Nigeria, the analysis of the legal and moral implications of the use of hate speech appears to be relatively unexplored. This is one of the research problems that this research seeks to address.

The above gap forms the motivation for the research. The present research tries to fill the gap that is why the researcher attempts to do the discourse analysis of hate speech among the Senior Federal Public Officials in Nigerian to let the perpetrators to know the legal consequences of hate speech especially with the recent signing of Hate Speech Bill 2020 into law by President Muhamadu Buhari.

Hate Speech and Its Dimensions

Hate speech is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display, which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. Essentially, such speeches rob others of their dignity. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013) noted 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; (e) participation in organizations and activities which promote and incite racial discrimination.

According to Neisser (1994:337), hate speech refers to “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 welcome for any other reasons”. Neisser argued that apart from causing danger of physical assault, hate speech risks violent reaction. Put simply, Kayambazinthu & Moyo (2002) conceived hate speeches as wars waged on others by means of word. Since words are Linguistic, this research is cantered on the linguistic accounts of hate speeches.

Indeed, phenomenon of hate speech has taken an extensive dimension in Africa due to poor regulations. Hate speech has permeated every nook and cranny of Africa. It has become an important aspect of electioneering campaign today that numerous election related conflict in Africa are credited to hate speech. Observably, hate speech has eaten deep into the bone marrows of Nigerians and it has continued unabated because it is an easy task performed only by the use of words. The hatred between the ethnic groups that make up Nigeria has intensified as the use of hate speech continues unregulated. This hatred manifests mostly between the dominant ethnic groups- Hausa, Igbos and Yoruba. The Igbos and Yoruba see the Hausas as “aboki” which though means friend but derogatorily means a moron. Similarly, the Hausa and the Yoruba see the Igbos as lovers of money while the Hausas and Igbos see the Yoruba as cowards and saboteurs.

In a recent report, Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD) (2015) shows that 70 percent of the people disseminating hate speech in Nigerian social media space use their identity and can be reached for a follow up actions. Again, English language is the major language used for reporting the dissemination of hate speeches. More so, over 65 percent of users of hate speech are males and a greater percentage of the contents of the posts use coded language that had been used in the past to generate violence/harm.

Hate Speeches

Although many countries have passed legislation prohibiting Hate Speech, what is defined as Hate Speech varies significantly between countries and regions. There is no general and internationally accepted definition found on Hate Speech. Both at an international, regional and national level, efforts have been made to address the problem.

According to David (2007), Hate Speech shall be understood as covering all forms of expressions which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed through aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.

The term Hate Speech is defines as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

Meanwhile, ethnic-induced Hate Speeches define the people’s daily lives. The Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, Kanuri, Ijaw, Efik, Ibibio and the over 250 ethnic nationalities that make up the entity called Nigeria all have hate tags for one another. In spite of this, there has been no official response or policy to ban Hate Speech in Nigeria, although there are Laws against slander and perjury (Jauns, 2012).

Hate Speech and propaganda are present in all societies to a various degree and intensity. Hate Speech affects and undermines the right of the targeted person to equality and freedom from discrimination. Left unanswered, Hate Speech can lead to disaster. It promotes prejudice and hate, which in time can undermine the roots of society, create a divide between societal groups and eventually lead to deep divides in the social cohesion.

In later years, the number of hate sites drastically increased on social media. Facebook and Twitter have further added to this evolution. Most people do not realized that a few words on Facebook or Twitter could sow a seed or an idea in the mind of someone who already has negative views or dangerous thoughts against specific groups or individuals.

According to Jauns (2012), Hate Speech is common in many societies, unfortunately, including those at minimal risk of genocide. Secondly, some Hate Speeches do not appreciably increase the risk of mass violence, although they may cause serious emotional and psychological damage. In other words, speech can harm directly or indirectly, or both. It may directly offend, denigrate, humiliate or frighten the people it purports to describe. Hate Speech can also bring about harm indirectly and with equal or even greater brutality by motivating others to think and act against members of the group in question.

In the words of Manshes (2006), Hate Speeches are driven by

·         Lack of accountability: no reconciliation, power of anonymity / distance.

·         Children affected by or involved in violence at increasingly earlier ages: proximity to conflict, learning to hate, break down of positive norms/values.

·         Political or tribal alignments: misconception on cultural diversity

·         Youth feel frustrated, social media offers an open platform, which can further entrench hate.

·         Lack of policies to guide on online freedom of expression, ethics and privacy.

Hate Speech is extreme stereotyping of an individual or a group of individuals aimed at dehumanizing them. It is by far easier to attack someone who has been dehumanized. It must not be forgotten that words are a powerful tool and while one individual does not react to Hate Speech and incitement to violence, another one might. For intolerance to be accepted needs only the indifference of the general population.

HARMS OF HATE SPEECH

Hate speech is a communication that employs intolerant appellations to insult and denounce others either on the bases of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other forms of group membership (Bagdikian, 1997). Consequently, hate speech exemplifies rhetorical strategies which drive some people to a level of hostility in which they openly wish physical harm on others or political leaders, contravening vital norms that enable democratic government to function (Chaiken & Eagly, 1978).

Hate speech can be considered harmful at several levels. It has potential of disturbing social peace in that exposure to hate speech shapes attitudes and influences actual behaviors (Müller & Schwarz, 2018), including serious hate crimes such as genocide (cf. Fyfe, 2017; Maravilla, 2008). Online hate may constitute a fertile ground for even more hate, in that it provides a model, a permission (Brodnig, 2016; Clay, 2017), a “social proof” of “appropriate” attitudes and behaviors (cf. Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2014), desensitizes the public to verbal violence and increases prejudice (Soral, Bilewicz, & Winiewski, 2018), rewarding its followers with social acceptation while punishing and silencing voices of objection (Brodnig, 2016; Coustick-Deal, 2017). Above all, hate speech poses a threat to physical safety and psychological well-being of targeted group members (Baldauf, Banaszczuk, Koreng, Schramm, & Stefanowitsch, 2015a; Coustick-Deal, 2017; Gelber & McNamara, 2016). Several among aforementioned studies warrant more in-depth discussion.

The twentieth century has witnessed the role of mass media (e.g. broadcasting and print media) in spreading hate, resulting in escalation of dehumanization and leading to hate crimes, the most extreme of which were genocides, such as Holocaust and genocide in Rwanda (Fyfe, 2017; Maravilla, 2008). A recent study by Müller and Schwarz (2018) strongly suggests the same mechanism to be true for the role of the XXI century’s digital media. The study clearly demonstrates the link between exposure to hate speech in social media and real-life violence. The authors applied a sound methodology to attempt some causative inferences on how hateful anti- refugee social media activity on the Facebook page of the German Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) party translates into actual violent acts against refugees. The authors conclude: “Using these measures, we find that anti- refugee hate crimes increase disproportionally in areas with higher Facebook usage during periods of high anti-refugee sentiment online. This effect is especially pronounced for violent incidents against refugees, such as arson and assault. Taken at face value, this suggests a role for social media in the transmission of Germany-wide anti-refugee sentiment” (p. 3). In order to rule out potential uncontrolled factors, the researchers also provided quasi-experimental support to the interpretation of their findings. They found out that in the weeks of sizable local internet disruptions, which limited the internet access of local users, the higher anti- refugee sentiment’s effect on hate crimes was significantly reduced as compared to the municipalities unaffected by internet outages. Also, at the Germany-wide level, the authors observed that “the effect of refugee posts on hate crimes essentially vanishes in weeks of major Facebook outages” (p. 4). In the light of the above, the role of social media in incitement to violent hate crimes, hence in affecting violent behavior, seems indisputable.

It is also widely acknowledged that hate speech poses a serious threat to the physical safety of the members of the targeted groups. According to Amadeu Antnio Stiftung’s chronicle of anti-refugee incidents (Chronik flüchtlingsfeindlicher Vorfälle“, o. J.), there were 1249 reported attacks against asylum-seeking individuals or their lodgings in Germany in the year 2015, 3769 in 2016 and 1939 in 2017. While much have been written about hate speech, its legal status, its types and its perpetrators, what is striking, is the scarcity of published research on the psychological harms of online hate speech for targeted individuals. Therefore, we need to attempt, at least partially, to extrapolate from existing research on more general psychological effects of being targeted by prejudice. The most profound effect of group-based prejudice on targeted individuals is probably elevated drainage of emotional resources in comparison to unaffected individuals, associated with constant necessity of dealing with overt discrimination as well as with microaggressions5, both prevalent in everyday life, and augmented in the digital world due to the online disinhibition effect, i.e. absence of restraints in online communication in comparison to face to face communication.

Constantly increased vigilance and mental preparedness to deal with or respond to overt prejudice or micro aggressions translate into chronically elevated level of stress, so called minority stress, which can lead to adverse health outcomes, such as depression or anxiety (Meyer, 1995, 2003).

Being affected by hate speech as a member of a targeted group is associated with significant emotional strain (Coustick-Deal, 2017; Gelber & McNamara, 2016; Mullen & Smyth, 2004). The feeling of injustice, helplessness, anxiety and threat can be listed among the psychological effects of hate speech. Since being targeted by prejudice in and of itself constitutes a source of significant distress, the decision to directly confront instances of online hateful behavior might turn out to be too much of emotional effort to endure for members of the targeted populations.

Gelber and McNamara, who conducted an exceptional qualitative study “Evidencing the harms of hate speech” (2016), list the following types of hate speech harms experienced by targeted individuals: unfairly ranking target persons as inferior, silencing the victims, distress, risk of destruction to one’s self-esteem, restrictions on freedom of movement and association, harms to dignity, maintenance of power imbalances within social hierarchies of race, making onlookers to believe negative stereotypes that lead them to engage in harmful conduct, normalization of expressing negative stereotypes and discriminatory behavior and encouraging the public to imitate the hateful behavior.

The internet is making it possible for people around the world to communicate with lightning speed and, for the most part, it’s a good thing. Whether it’s keeping up with friends and family or meeting new folks across the world, connected technology has made it a lot easier for us all to share ideas and information, seek advice and much more. And, while most of this interaction is kind and respectful, there are those who use it to demean, insult, bully and abuse. Hateful speech is horrible no matter who it’s aimed at and who witnesses it, but it’s especially troubling when it affects those who may not have the experience level or emotional maturity to compartmentalize it or know where to seek help. For some it can not only be demeaning but affect their self- esteem, leading to depression, isolation, anger and anti-social and self-destructive behavior.

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

Hate speech, especially online, has become one of the most frequent methods for spreading divisive and discriminatory messages and ideologies. Hate speech is agreed to be any speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. They are utterances, typed documents, advertorials, musicals or any form of literature that are used to attack an individual, a group – religious, social, political, business - gender or race. In some countries, hate speech can fall under the law of sedition, incitement to violence, verbal abuse and the likes. Ezeibe (2015) supported that “Hate speech is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. Essentially, such speeches rob others of their dignity”.

Jideofor Adibe (2014) as cited by Segun (2015) states, “Hate speech employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize 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. Segun (2015) added 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.” The words of Segun have clearly shown that hate speech usually leads to violent attack on any group or individual to which it is directed.

Methodology

This research centred on reported hate speeches. They are provided from the News Papers and Social Media. Since these are the sources of information, the research is concerned by the Discuss Analysis of the linguistic aspect of the speeches. Media houses are visited to collect these speeches and Libraries hosted the researchers. Well-informed professionals helped in the analysis and their observations and points of view are recorded.

Sampling

This paper selected 30 people for interview. It stratifies Nigeria into the following six geo-political zones:

1. Northwest -Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Zamfara states

2. Southwest -Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo and Ekiti states

3. Southeast -Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states

4. North-Central-Benue, FCT, Kogi, Kwara, Niger and Plateau states

5. North-East-Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe states

6. South-South -Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states

 Five elites from each of these geopolitical zones for interview were selected. Specifically, Christian and Islamic leaders, youth leaders, traditional leaders and leaders of civil society groups based in Nigeria were interviewd. Table 1 below shows the states from which our interviewees were drawn from.

Table 1: States in each geopolitical zone from where our interviewees shall be were drawn

Geopolitical	Christian Leaders	Muslim Leaders	Youth Leaders	Traditional Leaders	Leaders of civil societies group	Total
Northwest	Kaduna (1)	Kaduna (1)	Kaduna (1)	Kaduna (1)	Kano (1)	5
Southwest	Lagos (1)	Lagos (1)	Lagos (1)	Oyo (1)	Lagos (1)	5
Northcentral	Kogi (1)	Kogi (1)	Kogi (1)	Kogi (1)	Kogi (1)	5
North-East	Bauchi (1)	Bauchi (1)	Bauchi (1)	Yobe (1)	Bauchi (1)	5
South-South	Rivers (1)	Rivers (1)	Rivers (1)	Rivers (1)	Rivers (1)	5
South East	Abia (1)	Enugu (1)	Eboyi (1)	Anambra(1)	Imo (1)	5
Total	6	6	6	6	6	30

 

CRITICAL DISCORSE ANALYSIS

Critical Discourse Analysis is founded majorly on the work of three prominent scholars such as Fairclough’s critical approach, Wodak’s discourse-historical approach (Wodak & Chilton 2005) and Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach (Jahedi, Abdullah, & Mukundan, 2014). However, the approach adopted in this research is that of Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach.

Van Dijk’s approach like Fairclough’s approach attempts to connect the micro-structure of language to the macro-structure of society (Kintsch &Van Dijk, 1978). On the other hand, instead of discursive practice, Van Dijk (1993) focuses on social cognition as the intervening part between text and society. Therefore, Van Dijk (1993) describes the social cognitions as “communally shared depictions of societal activities, groups and relations, besides mental operations such as interpretation, thinking and arguing and learning” (p. 257. Specifically, Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) have distinguished between text’s micro-structure and macro-structure. Macro level denotes power, dominance as well as inequality among social groups, while micro level implies language use, discourse, verbal interaction and communication (Van Dijk, 2001).

THE CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF HATE SPEECHES

Hate speech is the precursor to violence and in every electioneering year and in volatile societies like Nigeria. Therefore, the ability to discern properly and understand the implied language and use of language and management of the interaction of the speakers is imperative. To achieve this, the discourse was based on three levels of analysis namely, the constructive aspect of language, rhetorical strategies and subject positions.

Level 1 analysis: Constructive aspect of language

A basic assumption underlying discourse analysis relates to the constructive aspect of language, which is the assumption that texts construct the objects to which they refer. That is to say, they create specific versions of the phenomena and processes they set out to describe. Therefore, under this theme, the study examined all instances where hate speech was implied and focused on the constructions. The Nigerian polity has become an enormous hate-dominated and it shows in the numerous abuses, threats, curses in addition to outbursts that dominate the newspapers as identified in the analysis. Consequently, in this study these aspects are to be subjected to a critical analysis with the view to knowing how much they reflect the use of social power and the ideologies that underlie their construction.

L1.1 Ethno-religious Tension (a) “It must be a Northerner or no Nigeria… If Goodluck Jonathan wins the PDP’s endorsement to contest the 2011 presidential election, there would be violence” - Guardian Newspaper, 2nd November, 2010.

The analysis From the quoted text credited to the National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed, it is clearly implied that the speaker, through a hate speech was promoting ethnic and religious tension. This is because, the subject being referred to was a Christian and South- South presidential candidate unlike him and his candidate who were from the Northern part of Nigeria. After establishing the manners of the hate speech’s construction in relation to ethno-religion, the focus is broadened to discover the constructions and intensity of speech within discourse analysis.

(b) “That short man called Ngige, we gave him power and he joined the Awolowo people; the people that killed Igbos” - Premium Times, November 13, 2013.

The analysis this quoted statement fits into hate speech classification because it evidently revealed the name of whom they accused of betrayal having joined and aligned politically with another ethnic group. Similarly, the construction portrayed someone as betrayal of his ethnic group, a sensitive and inciting statement. Contrary to this however, the guidelines for political parties by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the body constitutionally recognized to conduct elections, permit alliance of ethnic groups in political formations. So the attempt to castigate him for the political alignment with South- West was high level of hate speech and capable of instigating crisis.

L1.2 Inter-Communal Tension

(a) “Nigeria will disintegrate if Jonathan contests in 2015” - Daily Independent Friday, March 8th, 2013.

The analysis

e-ISSN: 2289-6589

Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 246

Within this statement, evidence of hate speech is constructed and as such can be inferred as the story is credited to Abu King Shuluwa and published by Daily Independent Friday, March 8th, 2013. The statement is coded inter-communal tension having clearly heightened tension on the future of Nigeria negatively over his support for a Northern kinsman against a person from another geo-political zone.

L1.3 Ethnic Tension/ stereotypes

(a) “The Yorubas are ungrateful kind of people, who do not appreciate what others have done for them” - Sun Newspaper, March 16, 2013.

The analysis Construction of hate speech becomes obvious in the quoted statement having categorically made a sweeping attack based on ethnic superiority which implied hatred, on one of the dominant ethnic groups in Nigeria the ‘Yorubas’. The seriousness of this can be understood from the fact that Yoruba constitutes close to 40 million people in total, found largely in Nigeria, where they make up about 21% of its population or roughly 35 million in 2012 (CIA World Factbook,2013) making them one of the largest ethnic groups of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Level 2 analysis: Language as functional: Rhetorical strategies

A second level of analysis examined the dynamics of interaction, the ways in which the participants’ use of language and management of the interaction serve interpersonal functions. The study also examined speaker’s utterance in relation to the discursive context that is ‘hate speech’ in which it is produced.

L2.1 Threat of violence/ Hate crime (a) God willing, by 2015, something will happen. They either conduct a free and fair election or they go a very disgraceful way. If what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood - Vanguard Newspaper on May 15th, 2012.

The analysis, this statement was credited to the then Presidential candidate of Congress for Progressive Change (APC), Muhammadu Buhari now the president. . The statement was widely condemned for its hate speech and threats of violence.

(b) “Unless efforts are made to ensure that the 2015 general election are free and fair, it may turn out to be the last election in the history of the nation” - Leadership March 29, 2012.

The analysis National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed made this venomous statement, which sparked tension and uproar across the country. The threat of possible ‘last election’ coming from an elder statesman was unbecoming.

(a) “You should not be bothered with cockroaches of politics. Cockroaches are only found in the toilet even at homes, If you see cockroach in your house, Crush them” - Premium Times on 19th November, 2014.

The analysis: This implied hate speech was made by the then Governor Shema Ibrahim of a Katsina State who reportedly urged his supporters to attack opponents and referred to his political opponents as cockroaches

e-ISSN: 2289-6589

Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 247

urging his supporters to kill them as they kill cockroaches. This kind of rhetoric is an incitement of one ethnic group against another.

(d) “Those who want to take power through the back door will die. They will die” - Punch Newspaper, 17th July, 2011

The analysis: former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio was acknowledged as the source of this statement. As a State Governor the statement was a hate speech and clearly directive to his followers. This was condemned as highly capable of stimulating violence.

(e) “We assure those cold blooded murderers that this time, their blood thirsty campaign will not go un- replied” - Vanguard Newspaper, 5th December, 2014

The analysis South East Self Determination Coalition (SESDC?) made this statement, which was categorized as copy- cat of the earlier made by Godswill Apkabio. The group responsible for this was known for its hatred for other ethnic groups.

 

L2.3 Hate crime/death wish

(a) former Ekiti State Governor, Peter Ayodele Fayose in January repeatedly took out front page newspaper advertorials warning voters not to vote for the APC presidential candidate Muhamadu Buhari. These advert, now widely known as “death wish advertorials,” insinuated that the Presidential candidate was likely to die in office if elected, like the late President, Yar adua.

The Analysis: in one of the most controversial headlines ever in the campaign history of Nigeria, former governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose - a PDP loyalist, makes a reference to the holy bible. Life and death is placed side by side and we are asked to choose accordingly. Fayose makes an appeal to history by displaying erstwhile leaders from the North who met their end while on sit as Heads of State. He asks a rhetorical question here: will you allow history to repeat itself again? That is, do you want another Northerner to die in office as the president again? Buhari is likened to death while Jonathan, in his late 50s is seen as life. As bad as the Fayose adverts were, some newspapers still ran them thus making themselves the catalysts for hate speech.

(b) “Major General Mohammadu Buhari has emerged as the APC flag bearer and President Goodluck Jonathan has emerged for the PDP in 2015. Now the battle for the soul and future of our nation begins. The forces of light shall surely prevail over the forces of darkness and God’s counsel alone shall stand over Nigeria. I stand with Jonathan. Let’s get it on” - Dailypost.ng December 12 2014.

The Analysis: Fani-Kayode, commonly called FFK in a frantic effort to discredit the APC and its flag bearer has termed it the “forces of darkness” and his own party the “forces of light”. The darkness symbolizes that no good can come out of Buhari and his party, and therefore the soul and future of Nigeria is at stake if the APC should emerge victorious. So the battle against this is the main focus of the PDP and its acolytes. The representative of the force of darkness is definitely a misfit for a country that has enough darkness already. Therefore, no well-meaning Nigerian will readily vote in the APC with this kind of description and representation.

e-ISSN: 2289-6589

Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 248

L2.4 Political Groups Tension or Violence

(a) “It is going to be rig and roast. We are prepared not to go to court but drive them out” - Tell, July 7, 2014.

The Analysis: Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, the national leader of APC then that later became the ruling political party went wild against those he claimed are agents of the PDP, the opposition party, alleged to have been sent to disrupt his party’s rally. He said: “If you are an agent of PDP here and you are sent to disrupt this rally, we will roast you”. This is a clear hate speech and a call for violence which is unprecedented of a national figure.

L2.5 Inter-Communal Tension

(a) “There will be no peace, not only in the Niger Delta, but everywhere if Goodluck Jonathan is not president by 2015, except God takes his life, which we do not pray for” - Vanguard , May 5, 2013.

The analysis: the leader of the Niger Delta Peoples Salvation Force (NDPSF), Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari was known for his hate speech and an attempt to threaten other ethnic groups in Nigeria. On many occasions he bragged to break Nigeria and attack the Northern part of Nigeria. This was one of the many of his tension-ridden utterances.

 

Level 3 analysis: Subject Positioning

Another important theme in the analysis is that of subject positions, that is the identities of the speaker and specific ways of talking (Davies & Harré, 1990). The questions raised and being answered at this level of analysis are: Who speaks? Who do they address? Who do they speak for? Already, as noted by Ukwu (2015) one of the key variables for determining the gravity of speech or when speech transforms from offensive to hate speech is the level of a speaker’s influence. Therefore, in answering these questions the table below presented detailed position of the speaker.

Table 1 Identities of speakers and specific hate speech

S/N Year Position of speakers/ Who do they speak for?

Hate speech/ Who do they address? Source/ Publication

1 2010 National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed

It must be a Northerner or no Nigeria… If Goodluck Jonathan wins the PDP‟s endorsement to contest the 2011 presidential election, there would be violence.

Interview with Guardian r, 2nd November, 2010/ neutral

2 2011 Presidential Candidate of Congress for Progressive Change, General Muhammadu Buhari

God willing, by 2015, something will happen. They either conduct a free and fair election or they go a very disgraceful way. If what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood. Reported by Lika Binniyat in Vanguard May 15, 2012 /PDP, 3 2012 National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed

Unless efforts are made to ensure that the 2015 general election are free and fair, it may turn out to be the last election in the history of the nation

Leadership March 29, 2012 /APC

e-ISSN: 2289-6589

Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 249

4 2013 National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed

There will be bloodshed. Those who feel short- changed may take the war path and the country may not be the same again

Reported by Kemy Oguns in Osun Defender, 2nd December, 2013 /APC

5 2013 Abu King Shuluwa Nigeria will disintegrate if Jonathan contests in 2015

Daily Independent Friday, March 8th , 2013 /PDP

6 2013 Former Chairman of PDP, Colonel Ahmadu Ali (rtd)

The Yorubas are ungrateful kind of people, who do not appreciate what others have done for them

Daily Sun , March 16, 2013? PDP

7 2014 Publicity Secretary of All Progressive Congress, Alhaji Lai Mohammed

If the 2015 elections are rigged, the party will not recognize the outcome and will go ahead and form a parallel government

Leadership 21st November, 2014; /APC

8 2014 former Governor Shema Ibrahim of Katsina State

You should not be bordered (sic) with cockroaches of politics. Cockroaches are only found in the toilet even at homes, If you see cockroach in your house, Crush them

Reported by Premium Times on 19th November, 2014 / APC

9 2014 Northern Elders Forum Those who vote for Jonathan and the PDP in 2015 will be considered an enemy of the north

Vanguard, 15 October 2014/ PDP

11 2013 The leader of the Niger Delta Peoples Salvation Force (NDPSF), Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari

There will be no peace, not only in the Niger Delta, but everywhere if Goodluck Jonathan is not president by 2015, except God takes his life, which we do not pray for

Vanguard Newspapers, May 5, 2013/ PDP

12 2013 Chief Arthur Eze PDP Chieftain

That short man called Ngige, we gave him power and he joined the Awolowo people; the people that killed Igbos

Premium Times, November 13, 2013/ APC

13 2014 Asiwaju Bola Tinubu It is going to be rig and roast. We are prepared not to go to court but drive them out Tell, 7 July 2014./ Neutral

14 2014 Former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio

Those who want to take power through the back door will die. They will die

Punch , 17th July, 201/ Neutral

15 2014 South East Self Determination Coalition (SESDC?)

We assure those cold blooded murderers that this time, their blood thirsty campaign will not go un-replied

Reported by Clifford Ndujihe in Vanguard , 5th December, 2014 / PDP

17 2014 former Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi

The challenge of the Nigerian military is not funding but corruption.

This day and The Nation , Tuesday,/ PDP

18 2015 Patience Jonathan Please don't vote for prison. A vote for Buhari is a vote to send people to Prison.

Vanguard news March 25, 2015.

From the discourse so far, it is clear that hate speech was the focal point and became an instrument of campaign in the 2015 general election. Therefore, the presentation of various hate speech in several newspapers showed that media have been used to stoke hatred and stimulate violence among ethnic and political groups during the electioneering periods as well as in the daily life.

Similarly, though prominence is a determinant of news worthiness however, when public figures try to outdo each other through the use of hate speeches, media have to make sure they do not draw undue attention. More so that politicians and other influential people who mostly perpetuate hate speeches do it for selfish interest, it is necessary for journalists to examine speakers and evaluate their words, scrutinize their facts and claims, and judge carefully the intention and likely impact on the society (Cowan & Mettrick, 2002).

CONCLUSION

People talk in the social media as if it is not another people that they are dehumanizing. They come out to contest for electoral positions and in their bid to gain cheap popularity say things that are detrimental to even themselves in the name of hate speeches.

Therefore, based on the analysis carried out, it can be concluded that media, particularly newspaper was used by politicians to achieve their selfish interest. Similarly, it will be inferred that most of the newspapers did not take into consideration the wider context in which politicians express themselves.

Therefore, newspaper organizations are required to focus not just on what politicians say, but what they intend. In view of this, the paper recommends that the media as the watchdog of society should take up the responsibility by bringing to the forefront the fiercely devastating effect of hate speech. In addition, politicians should be told in clear, unambiguous terms that hate speech does not win election; good governance, good manifesto do. The National Orientation Agency, in collaboration with civil society groups, political parties and community leaders, should also moderate their speeches as well as embark on a campaign against the use of hate speech.

REFERENCES

Adisa, R. M., Mohammed, R., & Ahmad, M. K. (2015). Newspaper framing of conflicts: Perceptions of ethnic group leaders on conflict behaviours in a multiethnic society. Jurnal Pengajian Media, 17(1), 29-44.

Bagdikian, B. H. (1997). The Media Monopoly.Beacon Press.

Bauer, M. W. & Aarts, B. (2000). Corpus construction: A principle for qualitative data collection. In M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds.) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound.Sage.

Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Blackwell.

Calvert, C. (1997). Hate speech and its harms: A communicative perspective. Journal of Communication, 47(1), 4-19.

Carment, D., James, P., & Taydas, Z. (2009). The internationalization of ethnic conflict: State, society, and synthesis. International Studies Review, 11(1), 63-86.

Chaiken, S. & Eagly, A. H. (1978). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (4), 605-614.

Cowan, G., & Mettrick, J. (2002). The effects of target variables and setting on perceptions of hate speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 277-299. e-ISSN: 2289-6589 Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 251

Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.

Harris, R. J. (2008). A cognitive psychology of mass communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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

Jahedi, M., Abdullah, F. S., & Mukundan, J. (2014). An overview of focal approaches of critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 2(4), 2835.

Joel, K. (2013). Ethnopaulism and ethno- religious hate speech in Nigeria. 2, 2017 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236268158.

Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE  Publications.

Kiai, M. (2007). Speech, power, and violence: Hate Speech and the Political Crisis in Kenya. Kenya National Commission on Human Rights. Second Periodic Report of the Election- Monitoring Project. Nairobi: Kenya.

Kintsch, W. & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.

Malik, S. (2015). When hate speech crosses the borderline of freedom of expression. International Centre for Investigative Reporting.http://icirnigeria.org/whenhatespeechcrossestheborderlineoffreedomofexpression/.

Mautner, G. (2008). Analyzing newspapers, magazine and other print media. In R. Wodak and M. Krzanowki (eds) Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Palgrave; Macmillan.

Mrabure, K. O. (2016). Counteracting hate speech and the right to freedom of expression in selected jurisdictions. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudenc, 7, 160-169.

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) http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/93846/Odera_.

Okakwu, E. (2015). 2015 Elections and Negative Effects of Hate Speeches.  http://www.peoplesdailyng.com/2015electionsandnegativeeffectsofhatespeeches/.

Okoli, A. C. & Iortyer, P. (2014). Electioneering and dialectics of political stability in Nigeria: Implications for sustainable democracy. Research on Humanities and Social

Sciences, 4(13), 20- 30. e-ISSN: 2289-6589 Volume 6 Issue 1 2017, 240-252 e-Academia Journal (http://journale-academiauitmt.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/home.html) © Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu 252

Osaghae, E. E. & Suberu, R. T. (2005). A History of Identities, Violence, and Stability in Nigeria. CRISE Working Paper, 6, 1-27.

Parker, I. (2002). Critical Discursive Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Tartius, R. (2015). Checking Hate Speech among Nigerian Politicians. The Nigerian Observer. http://nigerianobservernews.com/2015/02/checking-hate-speech-among-nigerian-politicians/#.WSp5x2iGOM8

Ethical Journalism Network (2016). Hate speech. http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publications/hate-speech/point-four.

Ugbechie, K. (2017). Hate Speech is not Free Speech. Nigeria Today. http://www.nigeriatoday.ng/2017/02/hatespeechisnotfreespeech/.

Ukwu, J. (2015). Dissecting the effects of fayose's advert. Naija.com. https://politics.naij.com/375350dissectingtheeffectsoffayosesadvert.html.

United Nation. (2016). General Assembly Resolution. http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html

Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press.Rutledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Wodak, R. & Chilton, P. (2005). A New Agenda in ( critical) Discourse Analysis. Theory,  methodology and interdisciplinary. John Benjamins Publishing Company.