







































AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          50 
 

HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A STUDY OF 

SELECTED SPEECHES OF NNAMDI KANU 

 

Chinwe Theresa Eze 

Department of English Language and Literature 

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 

 Email: ezetessy16@gmail.com 

 

 

Abstract 

Speeches are written with clear intents and purposes to explain, persuade, 

amuse, inform, or to influence ideas. Language and politics are intimately 

related as they influence each other. The language of politics is usually 

persuasive. Politicians are aware of the power of language to influence 

thoughts, persuade, and control people’s behaviour, so, they choose language 

strategies that would help them achieve their aim. Political activists most often 

resort to hate speeches and threats while addressing the public. In the course 

of the use of hate language, there might be problems of misinterpretation. The 

paper investigated the extent hate language in political discourse could help 

politicians in persuading their audience to adopt their political ideology. The 

research derived its theoretical framework from Persuasion Theory. The 

research studies the political speeches of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu – the IPOB 

leader. Data for the study comprises Kanu’s three political speeches. Textual 

analysis is employed to answer the research questions and evaluate the data. 

The result of the analysis proved that Nnamdi Kanu used hate speeches to 

incite hatred in the hearts of his followers. He equally uses hate speech to 

enact power, dominance, inequality and bias in the minds and lives of his 

audience. 

 

Keywords: Hate Speech, Persuasive Theory, Political Ideology 

 

Introduction 

Many countries, like Nigeria practice democracy and in the democratic 

nations, freedom of speech is allowed.  A speech is an expression of thoughts 

and ideas through spoken discourse. It can also come in the form of a written 

text. Public speakers always strive to appeal to their audience. The speaker 

could also aim at persuading, motivating and informing the audience. But 

when the speech includes demeaning, offensive and hurtful language which is 

aimed at stigmatizing a group of people, it is called hate speech. According to 

Wolfsin, hate speech generally includes offensive speech directed at 

minorities. In its most vulgar form, it includes the racial and sexist epithet 

such as ‘kike’ and ‘fag’. At more subtle level, or so it is argued, it includes 

books, cinema and television images that demean a minority’ (1). Tsesis 

argues that hate speech ‘antisocial oratory that is intended to incite 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          51 
 

persecution against people because of their race, colour, religion, ethnic group 

or nationality and has a substantial likelihood of causing …harm’ (211). 

Simpson defines hate speech thus:  

Hate speech is a term of art in legal or political theory that is 

used to refer to verbal  conduct – and other symbolic, 

communicative  action – which willfully expresses intense 

antipathy towards some group or towards an individual on the 

basis of membership in some group […] Hate speech thus 

includes things like identity – prejudicial abuse and 

harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist 

political and religious speech (e.g statements to the effect that 

all Muslims are terrorists or that gay people are second-class 

human beings), and certain displays of hate symbols (e.g 

swastikas or burning crosses). (211) 

 

Hate speech stems from tolerance and indifference. It is an exhibition of 

indifference to a grousp of people’s different ideologies on social, political 

and religious issues like ethnicity, race, religion, politics, sex and gender. 

Papanikolatos gives a varying definition of hate speech as ‘a moment in the 

process of forming national identities and intensity varies depending on its 

historical, social and political circumstances which may provide conditions for 

establishing a more or less inflated national self as against others’ (10). S/he 

further defines it thus: 

 

Hate speech in its most explicit manifestation and at its most intense level, is 

the denial of the very existence of others as such within the borders of 

particular state, that is, the  negation of the existence of the minorities be 

they religious, cultural or ethnic ones. In  this case, the media attempt to 

stress the imaginary concept of a fully homogenous society. The negation of 

the existence of others may also go beyond the borders of a particular state, 

which brings forth the denial of the existence of certain ethnic identities (12). 

These definitions unanimously agree that hate speech covers expressions that 

instigate, elevate or upgrade religious, social, political or racial hatred due to 

intolerance.  

 

This intolerance is usually manifested through discrimination and hostility 

against a group of who have different ideas, beliefs and ideologies. 

Intolerance to a people’s sexual orientation, gender and national origin can 

also lead to hate speech. Hate speech can take the form of identity-prejudicial 

verbal abuse and harassment online, aspersion, slurs, epithets, graffiti’s and 

extremist political and religious discourse. For instance, due to the issue of 

terrorism and Boko Haram insurgency in the Northern part of Nigeria where 

Muslims are ubiquitous, Nigerians seem to view every northerner as a 

terrorist. 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          52 
 

When people employ hate speech, they want their voices to be heard. They 

want to promote their ideas, identities and ideologies to the detriment of other 

people’s identities and ideologies. Hate speech infringes on people’s dignity. 

In Nigeria, hate speech is a crime. The Hate Speech bill tries to ‘eliminate’ 

hate speech and discourage ethnic, religious or racial intolerance. The bill 

states stiff penalties for offences like ethnic hatred. It states that: A person 

who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes and/or 

directs the performance of any material, written and/or visual, which is 

threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or 

insulting words or behaviour, commits an offence, if such person intends 

thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, 

ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person or persons from such 

an ethnic group in Nigeria. A person subjects another to harassment on the 

basis of ethnic for the purposes of this section where, on ethnic grounds, he 

unjustifiably engages in a conduct which has the purpose or effect of (a) 

violating that other person’s dignity or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, 

degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person subjected to 

the harassment. (Godwin par. 4&5) The bill goes ahead to stipulate a 

minimum of a five-year jail term and/or a fine of not less than ten million 

naira for culprits. Ultimately, the death penalty awaits anyone who causes 

another to die through hate speech. This bill encourages respect for different 

forms of diversity in a pluralistic society. 

 

Political Discourse  

Political discourse has to do with discourse in politics. Discourse represents 

analysis of written, verbal or non-verbal language. Political discourse focuses 

on discourse in political meetings like campaigns, manifestoes, debates, 

presidential speeches, but it may not be limited to discourse practices in these 

political gatherings or by politicians. TongtaoZheng says: “Political discourse 

should not be restricted only to settings such as parliamentary proclamations, 

speeches and election campaigns but also apply to all linguistic manifestations 

that may be considered political" (1). According to Teun Van Dijk; Political 

discourse is identified by its actors or authors, viz., politicians. Indeed, the 

vast  bulk of studies of political discourse are about the text and talk of 

professional politicians or political institutions such as presidents and prime 

ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties 

both at the local, national and international levels (12). 

 

Political discourse means different things to different discourse analysts. The 

definition of political discourse has been problematic. It has been delineated to 

cover issues of control, power, conflict and influence. According to John 

Wilson:  

…one needs at the outset to consider the reflexive and potentially 

ambiguous nature of the term political discourse.The term is 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          53 
 

suggestive of at least two possibilities: first, a discourse which is 

itself political; and second, an analysis of political discourse as 

simply an example discourse type, without explicitreference to 

political content or political  context. But things may be even more 

confusing. Given that for some definitions almost  all discourse may 

be considered political…, then all analyses of discourse are 

potentially political, and, on one level, all discourse analysis is 

political discourse. (398) 

 

Although these definitions have a slight difference between them, they agree 

that political discourse deals with discourse practices by politicians. They also 

agree that political discourse ought to have political context; whether formal 

or informal. Political discourse is usually employed by politicians and 

political supporters whose aim is to achieve political goals. Chilton and 

Schaffner conclude: 

If ‘politics’ is confined to institutional politics – parliamentary debates, 

party conference speeches and the likes and generally more overtly 

linked to ideology, then the objects of study for political discourse 

analysis can be easily circumscribed. But everyday conflicts – say 

between men and women, workers and managers, policemen and black 

youths, even schoolchildren and teachers – are sometimes by some 

people characterized as ‘political’. However, it is probably useful to 

maintain a distinction between institutional politics and everyday 

politics. (6) 

 

In political discourse, the politicial language employed is the focus. Political 

language is ‘who speaks to whom, as what, on what occasions and in what 

goals’ (Van Dijk 225). 

 

Politicians use certain linguistic strategies in their texts and talk. They use 

language to ‘manipulate’ the public to believe in them. ‘Political language is 

concerned with presenting and selling a positive image to others. The success 

of this merchandizing depends on the linguistic skills employed, which …may 

include persuasion, seduction, conviction, pledging or pretence, among other 

actions’ (Salem 82). 

 

Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB 

Nnamdi Kanu is a political activist who is of British – Nigerian nationality. 

He is the known leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and also the 

director of Radio Biafra a London-based radio station. Nnamdi was born in 

September, 1967, in IsiamaAbia State, Nigeria to the family of the Royal 

Highness Eze Israel Kanu. 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          54 
 

IPOB has only one weapon with which to fight Nigeria and that is civil 

disobedience not armed conflict. The main agenda of IPOB is to separate the 

South-East and some South-South regions from the rest of Nigeria. IPOB 

hopes to achieve this separation through referendum. He had a strong feeling 

that Igbos are seriously marginalized and relegated to the background in terms 

of development. Wanting to be a ‘saviour’ that would lift the South-South out 

of their pains plunge them into utopia as he advocates change and a Republic 

of Biafra. The struggle for Biafra did not start in the 20th century, however, 

reignited this fight in 2012 when he formed the IPOB organization to 

champion the quest of the Igbo people to have their own nation outside 

Nigeria. 

 

Persuasion Theory 

Persuasion theory is a mass communication theory that can be applied in 

politics, advertising and conflict resolution. ‘Persuasion…is central to public 

relations: in that it is able to influence target public’ (Smith 1). Daniel 

O’Keefe defines persuasion as ‘a successful intentional effort at influencing 

another’s mental state through communication in a circumstance in which the 

persuaded has some measure of freedom’ (5). These definitions agree that the 

primary purpose of persuasion is the intent to influence. 

 

Persuasion Theory deals with messages directed at surreptitiously changing 

the attitudes and mindset of listeners. The idea is to influence the listener 

without employing any kind of force. The audience is persuaded and not 

manipulated. In this theory, emphasis is laid on the most desirable persuasive 

effects of propaganda. Speeches are delivered with the clear intent of 

persuasion, instead of just stringing words together to form sentences. In 

political discourse, political leaders deliver persuasive messages which they 

believe would sway the voters. 

 

Research Question 

To what extent does hate speech in political speeches reflect social power 

abuse? 

 Social power is the extent of influence an organization or a person has over 

its members or even society at large. Generally, social power is the ability to 

influence other people. A person or organization that wields power has a large 

amount of influence over people. Social power is usually located in politics 

and society at large. Unlike physical power, force is not used to get people to 

act the way they do. 

Gershaw agrees: 

Coercive power influences others through threats and punishment. 

Coercive power is frequently used, because it gets quick results and is 

relatively easy to use. Unfortunately, it has several important 

drawbacks. First, the low-power person dislikes the high-power 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          55 
 

person. If this is the only source of power, the low-power person will 

get out of the relationship as soon as possible.  (Does anyone ever 

want to associate with a bully?).  Second, the low-power person has to 

be constantly watched so they cannot avoid the demand behaviour or 

get away from the high-power person. Third, if the power scales tip the 

other way, the former low-power people are likely to retaliate for the 

punishments they have received. In addition, if you rely almost 

exclusively on this power as a parent, children obey a coercive only 

because of fear – not because they think they are doing the right thing. 

(58) 

 

However, people cannot be socially powerful without the consent and support 

of others. Most people have power because others give it to them, so people 

cannot be powerful without the endorsement of human beings.  When one is 

armed with social power, one can bring about a change in the beliefs, 

attitudes, behaviour and values of someone because of their actions or 

expertise. This means that social power gives rise to social influence.Because 

‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Dalberg 21), 

in a social relationship, the person that wields the power might tend to abuse 

it. And social power abuses that power. 

 

Analysis of the Selected Speeches 

Excerpts from the speeches of NnamdiKanu: 

a. I’m a Biafran and we are going to crumble the zoo. Some idiots 

who are not educated said they’ll arrest me, and I ask them to 

come. I’m in Biafra land. If any of them leaves Biafra land alive, 

know that this is not IPOB (Kanu 10 – 12). 

b. The plans of our enemies are not going to be actualized. The 

enemies are planning, but we are formidable. We are going to 

boycott Anambra state election. After Anambra 2017, in 2019, 

there’ll be no elections in Biafra land (26 – 29). 

 

This speech is tee aftermath of the massacre of the members of the 

secessionist separatist group IPOB. In his speech, Kanu continuously refers to 

Nigeria as ‘the zoo’. He equally influences his audience to change their 

beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviour towards their own country, Nigeria. 

After all, it is a zoo and they will ‘crumble the zoo’. Kanu, as the supreme 

leader, wields social power over other members of the separatist group. This 

means that he has social influence over them. By calling Nigeria a zoo, Kanu 

leads his people into believing that Nigeria lacks law and order, and that they 

can go about flouting the laws of the country/zoo. 

 

With his social influence over them, Kanu persuades them to boycot the then 

oncoming Anambra gubernatorial election and the 2019 presidential and 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          56 
 

gubernatorial elections in Nigeria. According to INEC’s reports, which have 

been quoted earlier, only twenty-two percent of registered voters took part in 

the election. So, Kanu was able to influence IPOB members to boycott the 

election. Kanu’s participation in the election report is palpable. He abused 

power that was vested on him as the IPOB supreme leader by leading his 

members into not exercising their franchise. Also, Kanu uses hate speech to 

garner solidarity from IPOB members. Kanu usually constructs his political 

discourse to reflect asymmetrical power relations between him and his 

audience as he always manipulates and dominates them to do his wishes.Kanu 

employs hate speech to show his discrimination, hatred and bias against 

Nigeria. His hatred for Nigerians drives his discourse and he constantly 

reproduces that hate in his political talks. He uses it to influence IPOB 

members to do things that are against their own nation. 

 

‘Every right- thinking human being knows that the slogan ‘One Nigeria” is a 

ruse. Nigeria was not a united country and will NEVER be a united country 

even in the foreseeable future’ (38-39). To refresh our memories, Nigeria is a 

country made up of three distinct nations with mutually exclusive and 

diametrically opposed and irreconcilable value systems. Among these nations, 

BIAFRA is the only one with a distinct and internationally accepted 

Republican value system predicated upon the twin philosophy of (1) 

“Egbebere, ugobere” the principle of natural justice, fairness, equity, equality 

before the spiritual and temporal laws and (2) “Eziokwubundu” which is the 

weaving of the irreducibility of truth into the day to day discourse of life, in 

essence, a life of nobility predicated on honesty’ (Kanu 38 – 41). 

 

That Nigeria is perpetually in doldrums politically, economically and socially 

is of no surprise to any discerning mind and keen followers of the miserable 

history of Nigeria. After all, is it not why we found ourselves in far flung 

lands like the USA and many more countries around the world?’’ (Kanu 44) 

The general aim of this speech is to persuade the Igbos at this conference to 

join and support IPOB in their struggle for the restoration of Biafra. His social 

power over them as the leader of the secessionist separatist group would have 

sufficed in influencing the audience to support IPOB in the restoration of 

Biafra. But Kanu goes on to display his discrimination against Nigeria in 

order to persuade his audience. He disparages Nigeria, yet extols Biafra which 

is a part of Nigeria. 

 

Kanu adopts hate speech to disparage Nigeria and then form a kind of social 

relationship with his audience against their perceived enemy, Nigeria. Hate 

speech, as a discursive strategy, enables Kanu to form the identity of Biafra; 

the nation to be identified with and loved.  Ultimately, he employs hate speech 

in displaying his inequality and bias against Nigeria. Hate speech is illegal in 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          57 
 

Nigeria, so, Kanu abuses his social power, and uses it to lead his members 

into indulging in illegal linguistic exercise. 

 

Discussion of Findings and Conclusion 

Language is primarily used for communication. Language possesses 

persuasive tendencies. Words are usually structured to have certain effects on 

their hearers or readers.  Human beings do things with words. Words 

persuade; among other things. Some words have been termed power words 

because the psychological response they elicit from their hearers or readers. 

Language plays a pivotal role in politics. Language and politics are 

inseparable. Political speeches are usually geared towards persuading, 

motivating and influencing people to join political struggles. Politicians also 

make use of the first person pronoun ‘I’ to show themselves worthy of the 

cause, and the third person pronoun ‘we’ to show inclusion and participation 

in the struggle of their people. Political activists understand that there are 

certain persuasive strategies that influence people to change their attitudes, 

beliefs, behaviour, values and mindset and they copiously employ these 

persuasive strategies in their discourse. They do not apply violence. Hate 

speech can be employed by a politician as a discursive strategy to promote 

tribalism and hatred. It can be used to enact social power abuse, bias, 

dominance and inequality. Hate speech can achieve dominance over an 

audience using social cognition. A politician can employ hate speech to 

implicitly display power, control and dominance over his members. On the 

other hand, a politician can equally persuade his audience using hate speech. 

Social power abuse can be enacted in a political speech. The politician can use 

manipulation and dominance as tools of influence and persuasion. These tools 

can be employed by a speaker to achieve discursive control over his target 

audience. 

 

When a political speech contains hate speech, it drives the audience in the 

wrong direction. Hate speech drives an audience to enact inequality and bias 

in their hearts against another group of people .it also drives an audience to do 

things that are inimical to the laws of the nation. 

 

Politicians should desist from using hate speech. Although hate speech can 

assist in forming the identity of a political group, it is illegal in most countries 

of the world including Nigeria. Political discourse should focus on persuading 

the target audience to join in the political struggle. It should not redirect its 

focus on the other party thereby inciting hatred and making disparaging 

statements about the other group of people. Political speeches, albeit 

persuasive, can also be geared towards educating the audience on its aims and 

aspirations, especially if the separatist group has not been popularized. 

Casting aspersions on another group of people can lead to hatred and political 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Eze          58 
 

wars because hate speech serves as a threat to the opposition group who in 

turn can decide to act on the threats. 

 

Works Cited 

Abati, Reuben “A Letter to NnamdiKanu by Reuben Abati”  

 www.saharareporters.com. Accessed 25 Dec., 2018. 

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuassive Power  

 of Metaphor. New  York: Palmgrave Macmillan, 2005. 

Chilton, Paul. “Challenges in the Study of Language and Politics: Challenges  

 for JLP”. Journal  of Language and Politics. 6.3, 2007, pp 297 –  

 301. 

Dalberg, John. Acton-Creighton Correspondence.Cambridge University 

 Library, Department of  Manuscripts and University Archives,  

1887. Online Library of Liberty,  https://oll.libertyfund.org/ 

titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence. 

Gershaw, David. “Social Power and Its Abuse”..A Life on Line.http:// 

 virgil.azwestern.edu/dag/lol/SocialPower.html.Accessed 30 Dec.,  

 2018.  

Godwin, Ameh. “Hate Speech Offenders to Die by Hanging – Nigeria’s  

Senate’s New Bill”,  2018.https://dailypost.ng/2018/03/01/hate-

speech-offenders-die-hanging-nigeia-senats- new-bill/. Accessed 9 

Oct., 2018. 

Ogbonna, Anthony. Anambra Election: IPOB Says Low Turnout Sign Voters 

 Obeyed Boycott Order. www,vanguardngr.com. Acessed 25 

 Dec., 2018. 

Owoseye, Ayodamola. Only 22 Percent Voters Partook in Anambra Election – 

 INEC. www.premiumtimes.com. Oxford University Press, 2000. 

Richburg, Keith. Appreciation: Nelson Mandela Averted What Many 

 Expected – An all-out  Civil War. www.Washingtonpost.com. 

 Accessed 21 Dec., 2018. 

Salem, Ahmed. “Elusiveness in Political Discourse : How to Apologize the 

 American Way”.  Role of Media in Nation Building: Botanical 

 Discourse, Contact Languages and  Translation. Cambridge : 

Cambridge Scholars, 2016, pp 80-92. 

Smith, Greg. Persuasion Theory.www.markedbyteachers.com. Accessed 3 

 Apr.,2018. 

Tuan Luu.“Rhetorical Structures in the Language of Vietnamese 

 Advertisements”.Asian  Social  Science. 6.11(2010) pp 175 –  

182. 

Van, Dijk, Teun.“ Principles of Discourse Analysis” . Discourse and  

 Society.4.2(1993) pp 249-283. 

 

 

https://oll.libertyfund.org/%20titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence
https://oll.libertyfund.org/%20titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence
https://dailypost.ng/2018/03/01/hate-speech-offenders-die-hanging-nigeia-senats-%09new-bill/
https://dailypost.ng/2018/03/01/hate-speech-offenders-die-hanging-nigeia-senats-%09new-bill/
http://www.premiumtimes.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/

