Human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), argued on Monday that the National Assembly lacked the legislative competence to pass the controversial bill for the establishment of Hate Speech Commission.
He said in a statement that hate speech being “a residual matter”, would encroach on the legislative autonomy of state governments.
He threatened legal action to challenge the constitutionality of the bill if it was passed by the National Assembly and signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari.
The bill, which has passed the first reading at the Senate, provides varying degrees of penalties, including capital punishment for violation of different provisions of the proposed law.
Falana maintained on Monday that hate speech was not an item on either the exclusive or concurrent legislative lists in the Nigerian constitution, saying that the National Assembly therefore lacked the power to legislate on it.
The statement read, “The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the federation or any part thereof cannot be exercised at large.
“By virtue of Section 4 of the constitution, the power of the National Assembly to make laws is limited to matters in the exclusive legislative and concurrent legislative lists.
“To the extent that hate speech is not covered by both legislative lists, the National Assembly cannot pass any hate speech bill.”
He added, “Finally, even though the obnoxious bill is the initiative of a member of the National Assembly, the Buhari administration has adopted it hook, line and sinker.
“The constitutional validity of the bill will certainly be challenged in the Federal High Court if it is passed by the National Assembly and assented to by President Buhari.”
Falana noted that on the grounds that Nigeria was operating a federal system of government, the Supreme Court of Nigeria had declared in several cases that the National Assembly lacked the constitutional powers to make laws outside its legislative competence.
He said that by implication, “residual matters are meant for the houses of assembly of the states.”
He added, “Certainly, the hate speech bill is an attempt to encroach on the legislative autonomy of the state governments.”
He also observed that the hate speech bill was unnecessary as the Penal Code and the Criminal Code had taken care of acts which the new bill sought to criminalise.
The senior lawyer stated, “However, it is pertinent to point out that the Penal Code and Criminal Code applicable in the northern and southern states respectively have made provisions for hate speech because it is a state offence.
“Hence, the House of Assembly of each of the states has enacted laws against incitement, false accusation, sedition and criminal defamation.
“However, sedition and seditious publications have been declared illegal and unconstitutional in the case of Arthur Nwankwo v The State (1985) 6 NCLR 228.”
