Abstract

FREE speech is sacred to any democratic society. However, the sometimes painful bite of unfettered speech leads many to ask two perfectly logical questions: At what cost? And for what pain? Those questions are particularly acute when asked about hate speech, speech that causes considerable pain and offers little in the way of societal benefit. The issue of hate speech is not a new phenomenon. It is a recurrent issue not only in Nigeria but the various communities the world over. This study sets out to investigate the Impact of Hate Speech on Nigerian unity, how to limit the effect of this problem in our democratic society while protecting freedom of expression which is an important facet of democracy.

Introduction

Language is a social phenomenon. Language is not acquired or learnt for its form’s sake but is used to perform diverse communicative and social functions such as expressing opinion, feeling, or desires, asking questions, phatic communion, making suggestions, reacting to positive and negative actions, giving commands, inciting or persuading others, condemning and commending actions, etc. Saeed (2003, p.219) notes that the language user needs to “learn the uses to which utterances are conventionally put in the … language and how these uses are signaled.” This also means that as the learner/user is learning to use language, the hearer should be able to understand the communicative reality of utterances so as to know when he is being asked questions, abused, persuaded or otherwise (Saeed, 2003, p.219). The above phenomenon is what is technically known as Speech Act. In evaluating performative utterances, Saeed (2003) further observes that Speech Act may be successful or unsuccessful, may misfire or be abused.
In Nigeria today, one hears so many news on radio, television stations and in various newspapers. Some of the news items are validated while some are not before being aired. Some are true, some are false and others are exaggerated. All these invalidated speeches coming from media houses, newspapers and those found on social media have created a lot of problems not only for individuals indicted and their families but it has led to disunity and conflicts of various types in Nigerian communities. Unfounded and unverified stories have led to killings and crises of various types in the country. This is why the Federal Government of Nigeria thought it is expedient to draw the line on hate speech declaring hate speech as a form of terrorism .
Hate speech is an aspect of Speech Act. It is one of the ways language is construed or put to use. Őzarslan (2014) proposes that hate speech should be conceptualized as Speech Act or discourse and be named “Hate Speech Act”. This is based on the fact that hate speech reflects socio-cultural realities of language; as an “act”, it is „doing something‟ on the victims which sometimes results in violence and or psychological trauma. Down (2012) observes that hate speech is a dangerous weapon which is capable of terrorizing a person or group of people. In Nigeria, it is viewed as being capable of inciting war, causing ethnic clashes and territorial disputes or civil war .In 2017, the Nigerian government pronounced hate speech as an act of terrorism which results in the Senate proposing some bills on hate speech. It has also been observed that hate speech including its negative consequences is among the indicators of disunity and segregation.

Hate Speech

Hate speech is understood to be “all communications (whether verbal, written, symbolic) that insults a racial, ethnic
Hate speech is understood to be “all communications (whether verbal, written, symbolic) that insults a racial, ethnic
Hate speech is understood to be all communications whether verbal, written, or symbolic that insults racial, ethnic or socio 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. Hate speech could also be seen as war waged on others by means of words. Most online communication were relatively normal until recently, occasioned by political mudslinging, has turned the cloud arena into a sector of hate speech, this is mainly as pointed out by many scholars that several conditions which discrimination, lack of accommodation for market place political ideologies, lack of accountability and harvest of ideas from social media has continuously fuelled hate speech in social media. Both online and print media were expected to uplift man way of life and spearhead man into an advanced system, but rather it has been found to be the undoing of today’s civilization creating hate, racism and disunity in the Nigerian society.

The ills of hate speech in social media and internet has remained dominate in the minds of individuals. Hate speech also elucidates pain, distress, fear, embarrassment and isolation to individuals such that when it is directed a group of people, fans the embers of inequality, isolation and creates feeling of fear and discourages them from participating in the community and expressing their opinions. This reinforces our previous argument that hate speech degrades, humiliates and makes the victim aggressive and dangerous as it has been observed in different quarters of the Nigerian polity. Hate speech can be demonstrated in different guises such as in speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display and can incite people to violence action ,Violation of individual dignity, stress and distress, humiliation, fear and multiple embarrassment flow from unrestricted freedom of speech which are dangerous to human development.

In Nigeria and in other parts of the world, hate speech is frowned at. It is viewed as being capable of initiating conflict or war as well as capable of causing psychological trauma which may result in physical combat or incite people to act in an inordinate manner. Although in Nigeria hate speech and hate speech laws seem to be a current phenomenon which started in 2017 when the Vice President, Prof. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 5 • May 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.v9n5p23 186 Yemi Osibanjo and the senate declared hate speech as illegal and an act of terrorism, hate speech laws have been in existence in Nigeria and in several international communities such as United Nations, the USA, Kenya, etc (Alakali, Faga, and Mbursa (nd). The above source further observes that hate speech laws have been in existence in cyber-space and political party codes in Nigeria. In addition, there exist some international laws on hate speech which includes members of the Nigerian society

Hate speech in social media and Nigerian unity

In a heterogeneous and polarized country like Nigeria, hate speech threatens the nation-building process by widening the social distance among Nigerians, cementing existing distrust, and undermining national support. Hate speech can also negatively affect the economy. For instance, in the face of the quit notice given to the Igbos in northern Nigeria, some Igbo businessmen refused to entertain any credit request from customers, Igbos and non-Igbos alike, until after the October 1 deadline. Further, deposit money banks, already risk averse from high non-performing loans, became even more unwilling to lend during the quit notice period. The competitive quit notice, respectively given to the Igbos living in the North and the Northerners and Yorubas living in the Niger Delta, could curtail the willingness of Nigerians to invest in the regions other than their own because of the risk of future quit notices.

Mostonline communication was regarded as normal however,
or not welcome for any other reason
Both online and print Media were expected to uplift man‟s existence, but it has been found to be
the undoing of today‟s civilization creating hate and racism(Spiegel, 1999; Nemes, 2002 andWitschge, 2008).The illsH
On 21 August, Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari addressed the nation for the first time after more than 100 days of medical leave in London. In the five-minute address, Buhari expressed distress over the growing amount of hate speech, “especially in the social media,” saying it had “crossed our national red lines by daring to question our collective existence as a nation.” Buhari stressed that Nigeria’s unity was “settled and not negotiable.” Two days later, the director of defence information of the Nigerian Army, Major General John Enenche, expressed worry over “anti-government and anti-military information” on social media, which he said was “capable of jeopardizing the unity of the country.” Earlier, the then acting president, Yemi Osibanjo, decried the growing amount of inflammatory speech, saying it was “a species of terrorism” and citing Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide.

Hate speech is not new to Nigeria. The country is perhaps the only nation that has survived a civil war but had its corporate existence publicly attacked with such vehemence by its own politicians, journalists, and academics. Politicians started questioning Nigerian nationhood even before the ink with which Nigeria’s independence was signed in 1960 was dry; earlier, critics had called the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates of Nigeria the mistake of 1914. This dispute culminated in a 30-month civil war that led to the deaths of tens of thousands and millions of pounds’ worth of property losses from 1967 to 1970. There was also the abortive Orkar coup in 1990, when Major Gideon Orkar announced the dismemberment of Nigeria by excising five states in the north. Even though the country survived these crises, inciting speech did not stop, despite efforts at forgiveness and reconciliation.
Academics, especially historians, did not help the situation. Some of them presented the 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria by its British colonial masters as an amalgam of two monolithic and mutually exclusive entities: a Muslim north and a Christian south. The country’s media did not help matters, either; it is also divided into north and south, with each pushing a regional agenda or at least doing very little to bring the country together.
What social media did, however, was to afford hate groups an opportunity to spread their hate without restraint. With the growth of the Internet and the freedom of publication it offers, provocative speech assumed unprecedented proportions. People spreading hate now have the liberty to publish whatever they want, because they are the authors, editors, and producers of their content; all they need to circumvent conventional media, which may filter their content, is an account and data. Promoters of hate speech can therefore publish content that can never appear in conventional media.
Some Nigerians from both parts of the country take to social media platforms to malign each other by using unprintable names and issuing jaw-dropping threats. From the south, these attacks are spearheaded by the separatist group Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, led by Nnamdi Kanu, a British-Nigerian. Kanu’s group has constantly vilified Nigerians from the north and southwest and vowed not to stop until it has destroyed Nigeria. He has also called on his supporters to boycott elections in the country. Kanu, who is standing trial for treason, uploaded a video in which he inaugurated a secret army he called the Biafra Secret Service (BSS). The BSS aims to “gather intelligence” and restore and defend Biafra. Even though the group says it is a peaceful organization, it has told reporters that it is ready to use violence if that is its only option. Northern youths on social media have long been observing these developments, with little or no collective response. In June, some youths from the north, under the aegis of the self-styled Arewa (northern) youth groups, made what came to be known as the Kaduna Declaration, in which they gave Igbos living in the north an ultimatum of 1 October 2017 to quit the region in preparation for breakup. This declaration, which went viral on social media, attracted national outrage and drew insults, name-calling, and disparaging statements. As if to add insult to injury, a Hausa song maligning Igbos and calling for violence against them was uploaded onto social media platforms in July.
The susceptibility of the Internet to exploitation by terror and hate groups is not in doubt. With the freedom offered by the Internet, regional and tribal relations are becoming messier by the day in the most populous black-majority nation on earth. Social media makes tracking suspects difficult as some people use fake names and false addresses. This, in addition to the country’s weak security and judicial systems, makes social media a free space for terrorists, hate groups, and cyber criminals. These platforms, which were initially conceived of as vehicles for social cohesion, are fast turning into tools for national disunity.

Abuja did not mince its words in condemning this sad development. The president indicated that Nigeria would take measures to regulate hate speech, especially on social media. The presidency indicated that it was taking steps to legislate against hate speech and set up a special court to try people charged with that offence. However, this move has been condemned by members of the opposition People’s Democratic Party and by some legal experts as a smokescreen to subvert democracy and the Nigerian constitution.
There has always been a debate on hate speech, freedom of speech, and hate legislation. What is unarguable is that an unrestrained right to disparage, attack, and vilify individuals or groups because of their social affiliations is counterproductive to peace and co-existence in every society and must be checked. While attempts to muzzle opposition should not be supported, a fair law legislating against hate speech in the interest of peaceful co-existence and public order would not be out of place or against the constitution of Nigeria. Even though the constitution guarantees the right to free speech and a free press, that right is not absolute. Free speech may be restrained for the purposes of public interest, public order, or public safety or to allow others to enjoy their rights under the constitution. Furthermore, Abuja could make good use of criminal provisions already in place, such as laws against treason, the incitement of public disturbance, defamation, and the desecration of religious objects and the provisions of the 2011 Terrorism (Prevention) Act and its 2013 amendment that deal with hate speech.
What is worrying is the military’s indication that it has started monitoring “anti-government” and “anti-military” information on social media. This move is alarming not only because the terms are problematic and may lead to the silencing of critics but also because the militarisation of this issue will further impede the civil liberties of citizens. It is this kind of handling of Boko Haram that put Nigeria in its current mess. The government must stop the monitoring of people on social media, especially by the military.
There is a limit to what the law can do, however. Schools need to religiously push for national integration by inculcating a spirit of national unity through their civil education curricula. The national orientation agency, the federal body responsible for promoting patriotism, national unity, and the development of society, and its counterparts at the state level have a big role to play in revamping their current programmes and introducing new ones to bring Nigerian youths together. The media must stop promoting sectionalism and tribalism and work towards increasing understanding between southerners and northerners – or rather, between Nigerians generally.
More importantly, political, religious, traditional, and tribal leaders must speak up against hate speech, especially when such speech comes from their groups, and make efforts to bring the country together. Reticence by these leaders may be mistaken for endorsement of hate groups and their messages, not only by those groups but also by their victims, who may in turn resort to retaliation. In other words, all Nigerians must collectively kill hate speech as they collectively protect free speech.

Words or Phrases that are considered as hate speech in social media.

The words and phrases that follow were the terms most frequently identified by survey respondent as a form of hate speech and contributing to violent conflict and disunity in Nigeria. These words have contributed to disunity in Nigeria and affected the inter and intra relationship in the country.

1. Nigeria is a zoo

The term is commonplace and has different usages across Nigeria’s various communities. However, in the current dispensation, it is primarily associated with Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) movement, who has referred to the rest of Nigeria, or specifically the “Arewa people” (i.e., Northerners), as a zoo. Some survey respondents noted that some Igbos use the word “zoo” to describe the Northern part of the country, while still other respondents report that some people believe that Northerners think they “own the zoo.” it is considered hate speech, as is insults a specific group f people in Nigeria.

It is offensive because it relates a large group of people to animals that are “senseless, illiterate, and wild.” Although in some societies a zoo is a place to observe wild animals peacefully, the usage here highlights the wildness of the animals—“lawless and disorderly”—and thus, like wild game, “we are animals to be hunted.” The political implication of such language is that it conveys poor governance and that “the culture is not worth defending.” More specifically, it is intended to portray Nigeria as a failed or oppressive society, much like a zoo is to caged animals, from which Biafrans need to be released to achieve liberation. A counter reading is that other Nigerians (or at least those opposed to Biafra) think Biafrans are dehumanizing them in order to justify possible attacks, leading to mass killing, since Kanu has repeatedly said they were ready to fight. With specific regard to Kanu’s charge, it promotes division and separation and thus threatens Nigeria’s unity.

2. Arne

Arne” is a term used to describe a pagan or someone who does not believe in a monotheistic God. Over the past few decades, it has often been used by some Muslims to describe Christians. It is often used by Muslim Hausa speakers to refer to those who espouse Christianity, especially in the North, as “infidels” or “unbelievers.” Other respondents claimed it is now even used by other Muslims, and not just Hausa-speaking Muslims, to describe Christians throughout the country. However, use of the term may primarily be a feature of Muslim-Christian conflict among Northerners themselves. In Islam, Christians are considered to be “people of the Holy Book” and are not therefore considered to be pagans; however, the term is used by Muslims who are not well educated in their religion or by some extremist sects who consider all non-members of their group as pagans. A couple of workshop participants argued that those who used “arne” actually meant. This meaning seems to make sense because some attendees argued that “arne” concerns extreme and strict adherence to doctrine, which is more indicative of “kafir.”

This word denote a strong sense of hate speech because It seeks to deny the validity and practice of the other person’s faith or lack of faith and proclaims the superiority of the speaker’s faith—in this case, Islam. For extremist groups, it is an affirmation that the non-Muslim should be forcefully converted or killed. As such, it is not only pejorative and insulting, but in using it, the speaker denies the humanity and identity of the targeted person. As a workshop attendee put it, “It could start a riot in 10 minutes.” One survey respondent added, “Although some Muslims are against the usage of the word, during crisis situations, it is used to ignite violent attacks against non-Muslims,” specifically to mobilize Muslim youth. Another noted, “It shows intolerance for other people’s opinions and beliefs which the constitution expressly grants freedom to.

1. Parasites
   A parasite is an organism that sustains itself by living off a host organism; it is someone who feeds on the sweat of another’s labor, where the host itself does not benefit. At one level, the elites produced by the reign of the generals bastardized the idea of resource-sharing designed for the country. The term, like others, is about power and relationships to it, but it is also specifically about resources. This term has regional implications in that some people from the South-South and Southeast refer to poorer Northerners as economic parasites on the country’s resources, particularly the revenue-earning oil. To some extent, this characterization has been applied to the government, as its leadership is seen as dominated by Northerners. Another common “parasite” flashpoint is the value-added tax collected on alcohol sales. All states, including predominantly Muslim states, benefit from the tax, although in principle all do not contribute to it. In practice, some Muslims consume alcohol, demonstrating that the issue is more about perception than reality. However, workshop participants noted that this definition lacks substance. For example, the North’s agriculture helped develop Nigeria before oil flowed, and some Southern communities have benefited from amnesties for rebels, training and re-training, and environmental cleanup of oil spills in their home areas.

Speaking from the Nigerian palace Labeling a parasite is a form of hate speech the speaker is thereby suggesting the listener has no right to where he/she lives or to the resources from which he/she benefits. In addition, most people understand parasites to be insects and, thus, easily exterminated without much consideration. In practice, it is mainly used by Christian Igbos to stir up their people against Northerners in general but Hausa-Fulani Muslims in particular, and this is provocative because there are many Igbos also living in the North. Similarly, IPOB argues that the rest of Nigeria “parasites” its resources. It also has settler/indigene implications, such as with the crisis in Jos, where people who have moved to new areas or are pastoralists are seen as taking from the region or from the land itself. The term also attacks the “federal character” of Nigeria articulated in the constitution, in that the country’s resources—from oil to civil-service positions to higher-education placement—were meant to be distributed among all Nigerians.

4. Animals

Describing a person as an animal, or a group of people as animals, implies that they lack intelligence, feelings, and self-control, and thus are not deserving of rights. According to one respondent, some “Biafra agitators use the term to refer to Nigerians who don’t want the country to disintegrate. These agitators see Nigeria as a zoo and every ’other’ Nigerian as an animal.” Indeed, IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has used “animal” as well as “Nigeria is a zoo.” Another participant added, “The Igbo generally refer to the Hausa-Fulani as animals even though it also triggers a violent reply. This association may also resonate because some Hausa-Fulani Northerners are herdsmen and there have been violent farmer-herder incidents.” “Agwoi” is a term that has been used by people from Benue to characterize Fulani herdsmen as animals

Animals lack consciences, “the capacity to think or act rationally,” and are “lawless and disorderly.” Equating a person with an animal or a group with animals is intentionally demeaning and is an implicit call to control or kill the target, since wild animals are there to be hunted. The term’s intent, and to some degree its usage, is related to the phrase “Nigeria is a zoo”; “animal” is meant to stigmatize an individual, whereas “Nigeria is a zoo” is used to insult a group or region which is the main reason for Nigeria’s disunity.

Probable solutions to hate speech in social media.

The media has brought a revolutionary change in our society today, ranging from boundless means of communication and protection of fundamental human rights. The media also play an important part in responding to ‘hate speech’ through promoting equality and non-discrimination, and the right to freedom of expression.

To help rid our nation of this trouble we must act very seriously, starting with notable social media platforms:

1. Sanitization of social media Entities

Countering tribalised hate speech begins by a realization that while freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, the emergence of social media has created multiple platforms for the production, packaging and dissemination of hate speech. Education on media ethics should focus on the rights and freedoms of journalists and their role in creating and promoting peaceful societies.
Awareness must be raised on the political, social and cultural rights of individuals and groups, including freedom of speech, and the responsibilities and social implications that come with press freedom. Journalists must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to identify hate speech and to counteract hate speech messages. A monitoring and evaluation team can be created. These units would then be tasked with monitoring hate speech trends, compiling reports and bringing these to the attention of key institutions and the civil society.
In respect of their own internal practices mass media entities should take steps to:
• Ensure that their workforces are diverse, and representative of society as a whole.
• Address, as far as possible, issues of concern to all groups in society, in particular women, minorities and people from all parts of the community
• Seek a multiplicity of sources and voices from within different communities, rather than representing communities as homogenous entities
• Adhere to high standards of reporting that meet recognized professional and ethical standards.

Promulgate and effectively implement professional codes of conduct for the media and journalists that reflect equality principles. it is also repeatedly recommended that, in order to proactively combat discrimination, media entities should.

• Take care to report in context, and in a factual and sensitive manner
• Ensure that acts of discrimination are brought to the attention of the public
• Be alert to the danger of discrimination or negative stereotypes of individuals and groups being furthered by the media
• Avoid unnecessary references to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and other group characteristics that may promote intolerance
• Raise awareness of the harm caused by discrimination and negative stereotyping.
• Report on different groups or communities and give their members an opportunity to speak and to be heard in a way that promotes a better understanding of them, while at the same time reflecting the perspectives of those groups or communities.
• Invest in and ensure access to professional development programmes that raise awareness about the role the media can play in promoting equality and the need to avoid negative stereotypes.
Public service broadcasters should be obliged to avoid negative stereotypes of individuals and groups, and their mandate should require them to promote intergroup understanding and foster a better understanding among the public of different communities and the issues they face.

2. Mobilizing society against ‘hate speech.

Civil society plays a critical role in advancing the protection and promotion of human rights. Their activities can be central in responding to ‘hate speech,’ as they can provide the space for both formal and informal interactions between people of similar or diverse backgrounds, and platforms from which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression, and tackle inequality and discrimination.
At local, national, regional and international levels, civil society initiatives are among the most innovative and effective for monitoring and responding to incidents of intolerance and violence, as well as for countering ‘hate speech.

Civil society initiatives are often designed and implemented by the individuals and communities most affected by discrimination and violence, and provide unique possibilities for communicating positive messages and educating the public, as well as monitoring the nature and impact of discrimination. Ensuring a safe and enabling environment for civil society to operate is therefore also crucial. Public information and education campaigns are essential to creating an environment in which the sharing of information is maximised, and critical discourse can flourish. This is particularly the case when discrimination is institutionalised. Priority areas in this respect may include schools, the medical profession, the armed forces, the police, the judiciary, the Bar, as well as in sport. However, this also requires NGOs, equality bodies, religious institutions, police, policymakers and international organisations to collaborate on tackling manifestations of intolerance and prejudice in society.

For example: Since 2012, the ‘No Hate Speech Movement’ project of the Council of Europe has provided a platform for sharing examples, projects, and best practices in civil society campaigns. These campaigns are aimed at reducing acceptance of ‘hate speech’ in the region through various means, such as promoting media and Internet literacy and youth participation, activities to counter ‘hate speech, through human rights education, raising awareness of the risks of ‘hate speech’ for democracy and disseminating various resource materials.
• In Italy: Prism project (Preventing, Redressing and Inhibiting Hate Speech in New Media) is a joint initiative of Italian civil society and UNAR, together with four other European countries (France, Spain, Romania, and UK), funded 29 by the EU Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme.66 The project is based on an interdisciplinary strategy and combines research, best practice, and training activities targeted at law enforcement, lawyers, journalists, bloggers, social networks, young people, teachers, and youth workers; • The Young People Combating Hate Speech Online – No Hate Speech Movement, campaign, under the auspices of the Youth and Civil Service Department of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and funded by the Council of Europe, aimed to counter online expressions of racism and discrimination by producing educational toolkits and running online campaigns aims at young people and youth organizations.
• In the UK: Stop Hate UK70 provides independent, confidential and accessible reporting and support for victims of hate crimes and ’hate speech,’ witnesses and third parties. It also provides alternatives for people who do not wish to report hate crimes to the police or other statutory agencies. It runs the Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime Line (a service for England and Wales) which provides support to people affected by learning disability hate crime; and the Stop Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Hate Crime Line which provides information, advice, support and telephone-based advocacy to LGBTQI71 people who are experiencing discrimination or incidents of ’hate speech’ as a result of their identity or perceived identity.
• Stop Funding Hate campaign72 is a campaign which aims to stop major companies (for example Aldi, Asda, Barclays, British Airways, Co-op UK, Gillette, Iceland, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Lego, Virgin Media and Waitrose), from advertising in certain newspapers, primarily tabloids Daily Mail, The Sun and Daily Express, which are described by 30 the campaign as spreading ‘hate’ or discriminatory views. In 2016, the campaign reported that Specsavers (a British optical retail chain) withdrew an advert from the Daily Express, as it considered the newspaper to be fueling ”fear and division.”73 Also, in January 2018, the campaign reported Virgin Trains has stopped offering the Daily Mail on its trains due concerns over the newspaper’s editorial position on issues including immigration, LGBTQI rights and individuals who are unemployed.

3. Establishment of equality bodies.

Independent equality institutions or national human rights institutions (NHRIs) with mandates in the area of non-discrimination and equality play a crucial role in responding to ‘hate speech’ and promoting and protecting the right to equality and non-discrimination, including with respect to the right to freedom of expression.

The creation of these bodies is vital ,because of the role they play in neutralizing any trace of hate speech in the society as a whole and in social media, these bodies play important role as :
• Assist legislatures and governments in the development of laws and policies that comply with States’ international human rights obligations, including in relation to freedom of expression and non-discrimination, encouraging the full and effective participation of civil society in these processes;
• Receive complaints regarding discrimination, and, where appropriate, provide alternative and/or voluntary dispute resolution mechanisms;
• Complement and provide information to governmental early warning mechanisms or focal-points that monitor tensions within or between different communities;
• Encourage and, where appropriate, support alternative mechanisms for intercommunal interaction and dialogue. It is important that NHRIs and equality bodies, do not operate in isolation. They should be empowered to build partnerships across public sector agencies and, where appropriate, with private actors and civil society, to tackle the root causes of discrimination. In this regard, they should play an integral role in developing and implementing national action plans to tackle the root causes of discrimination, in particular those outlined in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, and the Rabat Plan of Action.

Conclusion.

The stabs of hate speech in social media could be found in all parts of the world including Nigeria, ranging from pain, distress, fear, embarrassment and isolation to individuals such that when it is directed a group of people, fans the embers of inequality, isolation and creates feeling of fear ,discouragement and violent disagreements in the society.
This paper has shown the effects and probable solutions to the use of hate speech in social media, proving that the no matter how deep the effects of hate speech goes, a peaceful environment and a neutral ground where all is forgiven and all parties can interact without an atom of hate speech can still exist. Neutralizing hate speech from the Nigerian mind and social media will protect the fundamental right to expression in social media while bolstering the unity of this nation and the world at large.