THE story of the Canada-based Nigerian woman who took hate to a supersonic level by threatening to poison the Yoruba and Bini people trended last week. The woman, speaking in pidgin English, said: “It is time to start poisoning the Yorubas and the Benin. Put poison in all your foods at work. Put poison in all your water so that you all will begin dying one after the other…. I will put them in all your foods. If I go to work tomorrow, I will put it (poison) in Yoruba people’s food. Go and tell the government that I’m in Canada, I’m in Ontario. Hurry up, go fast.”

Though there have been claims that the name might have been an impersonation, so far no one has come forward to disclaim the name and photo so it is fair to believe that the identity of the villain is as published.

The dispatch with which the identity of the woman was unmasked is commendable. It is also commendable that Nigerians across ethnicities and fault lines closed ranks to condemn the heinous statement in no unmistakable terms. That is one of the surest ways of ensuring that such fringe beliefs are never mainstreamed. We sure have our differences and grievances, but going to the extent of threatening to poison anyone, not to talk of a group of people, is heinous.

One of the dangers of stereotyping is that all members of the targeted group are presumed to be guilty by association. These include those who may actually be soldiering against various forms of injustice and xenophobia within the targeted in-group and those possibly solidarising with Ms. Suunberger’s grievances or married from her ethnic stock. Ms Sunnberger said Igbophobia by the said groups was what animated her hate.  

It is true that we all indulge in stereotyping others in various degrees – even among family members. This often stems from a basic cognitive need to categorise, simplify, and process the complex world around us. However, when it is weaponised as Ms Sunnberger did and (others like her also do across the country), it becomes a basis for social bias, prejudice, discrimination and in its extreme form a call for genocide. One of the dangers of this extreme form of response to perceived persecution is that it unwittingly provides a justification for the actions of the bigoted souls in the in-groups she inveighed against. 

The outburst from Ms Sunnberger, as condemnable as it is, however merely masks a more fundamental problem:

On February 2, 2012, the late Professor Abdul Rauf Mustapha (then of Oxford University) and I were invited by the Institute of Security Studies in Pretoria, South Africa, to be guest speakers on the theme, “The Threat of Boko Haram and the Challenges to Peace, Security and Unity of Nigeria”. Boko Haram, which got radicalised in 2009, had upped its terroristic activity when its suicide bomber attacked the United Nations headquarters in Abuja on August 26, 2011, killing at least 21 people and wounding scores. It was a hot topic across the world at that time. In Nigeria at that time, the mere mention of the group’s name instilled fears in the minds of most people such that the name of the group was mentioned mostly in hush-hush. Professor Mustapha was asked to provide the historical explanation for the emergence of the group, while I was asked to provide a theoretical framework for understanding the group and what it represented.

In my paper, I reviewed the various theories used at that time to explain the Boko Haram phenomenon – the poverty argument, the poor governance explanation, the frustration-aggression hypothesis (among others) as well as the various conspiracy theories about the group. I argued that each was incapable of offering a comprehensive explanation of the Boko Haram phenomenon. My contention was that a more comprehensive explanation was the crisis in our nation-building, which I argued, feeds into the crisis of underdevelopment to create an existential crisis for many Nigerians and groups within the country.  I further argued: “For many young people, a way of resolving the consequent sense of alienation is to retreat from the Nigeria project and construct meanings in chosen primordial identities – often with the Nigerian state as the enemy. In this sense, actions we rightly see as heinous are normal, even heroic, to them. The fact that many communities in which such people live know them but are not giving them away to the authorities could mean that the de-Nigerianisation process is perhaps more pervasive than we think.” 

I concluded by arguing that unless the crisis in the country’s nation building process is effectively resolved, any solution thrown to the country’s myriad problems would quickly become part of the problems. This part of my thesis seemed vindicated when many netizens took on Abike Dabiri Erewa, the CEO of the Nigerians in Diapora Commission, NIDCOM, who was able to unveil the identity of the woman in the genocidal video within a few hours of its going viral. They asked her why she did not show a similar promptness of action with those who weaponised ethnicity in Lagos or led the #IgboMustGo on X (formerly Twitter). The truth is that even if these set of people were apprehended with the same speed she displayed in unmasking Ms. Sunnberger, there would still be groups who would complain that people from other out-groups had done similar or worse things and were let to go scot free or given a mere slap on the wrist. This is one of the reasons our problems are rarely comprehensively resolved. They merely mutate. 

The point is that the process of individuals and groups de-linking from the Nigerian state (what I called de-Nigerianisation) has been ongoing and predated the APC-led Federal Government that started in 2015. The tragedy is that the crisis in our nation-building process and the consequent de-Nigerianisation seem to have become accelerated under them.

How do we deal with characters like Amaka Sunnberger and her likes? Here I would make a distinction between hate speech and genocidal speech or what Americans would call ‘fighting words’ – words that, when uttered, could inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. In the latter case, it is important that the law should take its course to protect all groups within the society. Given the general distrust of government, it is crucial that a taxonomy of what constitutes genocidal speech is developed and the appropriate punishment to be meted to offenders clearly spelt out. This must not only be implemented irrespective of who is involved but also seen to be so done. 

Once anyone falls foul of such and goes free or is given a mere slap on the wrist, it becomes more difficult for the government to enforce such laws in other instances without undermining its own legitimacy in the process.  

It is with government’s efforts to control hate-speech – speeches that merely provoke and insult others- that the government is more vulnerable. This is in large part because of the morbid distrust of governments across the world but especially in our types of societies.  It will not only be suspected of bias but also of harbouring a hidden agenda of using such as a pretext to muzzle free speech. While there is unanimity in condemning Ms. Sunnberger’s genocidal speech (several Igbo groups also distanced themselves from her speech and none has so far come to her defence), it would have been different if she merely used insulting words. In many jurisdictions, hate speech remains protected speech, even if they are called low speech. One of the problems in Nigerian government’s efforts to control hate speech is the tendency to conflate this with genocidal speeches (fighting words). Different strategies are often needed in fighting the two speech forms.

A related question raised by the ‘Ms. Sunnberger affair’ is how do we win back Nigerians who have de-linked or are de-linking from the Nigerian state – whether they are #EndSars protesters, #EndBadGovernance agitators or avowed separatists?  There are no magic bullets for this. But the government being conscious of the fact that nation-building is the DELIBERATE use of state instruments to create a sense of oneness and loyalty to the state by the diverse groups that make up the nation-state, is one bold step.

Quite often the use of intimidation and strong arm tactics to silence such groups not only make heroes and heroines of their leaders but also exacerbates the sense of alienation from the state by their members. The government should prioritise resolving the crisis in the country’s nation-building process and winning the minds and hearts of as many of the ‘de-Nigerianising Nigerians’ as possible. Without this, any solution thrown at any of the country’s numerous problems, (no matter how well-intentioned), will quickly become part of the problems.

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.