British lawmaker and Professor of Political Philosophy, Lord Bhikhu Parekh once wrote: Although free speech is an important value, it is not the only one. Human dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s good name and honour, are also central to the good life and deserve to be safeguarded. 

When Lord Parekh wrote those wise words, it is as if he had anticipated last week’s events when a Kenyan magistrate court caused fierce debate when it sentenced 25-year-old Alan Wadi Okengo, with using his Facebook account to among others, insult President Uhuru Kenyatta as well as state that members of the Kikuyu ethnic group should be confined to certain parts of Kenya.

After being charged, Okengo pleaded guilty to both counts of hate speech and demeaning authority of a public officer, which is contrary to Section 132 of the Kenyan Penal Code.

He was fined and also handed a one year custodial sentence. Previously, in December 2014, Robert Alai, another Kenyan blogger, was charged with undermining the presidency after he sent a tweet which in part referred to President Kenyatta as an "adolescent president”.

Nonetheless, did the two Kenyans overstep the mark or are the law courts simply infringing on their right to freedom of speech as some commentators have argued?

To understand the two opposing arguments we must comprehend the overall paradigm of democracy and its principles. At its most basic, democracy refers to a process of political authority or legitimacy, and the way of conducting the affairs of a political community that it implies.

Principally speaking, democracy stands for the view that citizens collectively are the source of political authority, and therefore have the right to speak in the name of the community including taking binding decisions.

It can also be argued that in a democracy, the will of the people is the sole source of legitimacy, and their well-being is the sole basis of laws and policies which are enacted through representation in parliament or its equivalent.

However, as we have witnessed in the past, there are times when this democratic process breaks down and we feel that our views have not been properly represented either individually or collectively.

An example of this breakdown is when lawmakers in the same country recently traded blows after a parliamentary session approved changes to a seemingly controversial new security bill which requires journalists to obtain police permission before investigating or publishing stories on domestic terrorism and security.

The same bill which most believe is the source of both Okengo and Alai’s dissent, gives security agencies the right to tap communications without court consent.

Like most people, I agree that in an open, democratic society, free speech is essential. In fact, members of the press, political opponents and ordinary citizens must have the freedom to criticise as well as show support for those in power.

It is one of the ways that as a society we are able to hold our leaders accountable for their actions. What I fundamentally disagree with, however, is the idea that freedom of speech should be granted no matter how vulgar, profane or distasteful a particular form of expression may be.

Take for example, Okengo’s statement which suggests that members of the Kikuyu ethnic group should be confined to certain parts of Kenya. Isn’t this ethnic discrimination, and hasn’t this young man quickly forgotten what this particular form of discrimination can lead to?

Perhaps, one can excuse his tender age but certainly not his comments.

In retrospect, Okengo is not alone. In fact, I find that some individuals and / or organisations seek to defend unequivocally the right to hold and express whatever opinion one has and give less or no attention at all to the content and impact of that opinion.

For example, Liberty, a leading UK Human Rights group, disapproves of Sections 4A and 5 of the UK’s Public Order Act (1986) which makes it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.

According to Liberty, these laws can have serious implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an offence.

Evidently, Liberty, like many other human rights organisations, seems to be more concerned with protecting the rights of the individual(s) expressing vulgar language at the expense of the recipient. I do not find this to be fair.

To sum up, I believe that principles of democracy such as free speech and basic rights, although can easily become weapons of manipulation because the beneficiary is under no preconditions prior to those rights being exercised, they are an essential part of a well governed society.

In essence, I stand by the belief that man should be allowed to scrutinise and comment on whatever he feels concerns him, but only on condition that his dissent does not infringe on the rights of the next man.

Email: junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk