Hate speech has two components that is defined within the law and outside the law. Wikipedia describes Hate speech, outside the law, as speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. Whereas, in law with legal consequences, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The Hate speech legislation then strikes balance as it is seen as an efficient and appropriate means to prevent harm emanating from speech. Hate speech legislation is seen as an efficient and appropriate means to prevent harm emanating from speech. International Conventions, most notably the Genocide Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) put an obligation on their state parties to prohibit different forms of incitement. Surely, there cannot be anything wrong about prosecuting perpetrators, whose aim it is to incite people to displace, rape and kill their fellow countrymen. Yet, in Rwanda hate speech legislation provides a tool for the government to suppress the opposition, media representatives, civil society actors, and the general public for legitimate speech and dissent. And in Kenya, high-level hate-mongers escape with impunity. Clearly, something has gone wrong in both cases. This motivates a scrutiny of whether hate speech legislation is indeed an appropriate means to prevent renewed violence emanating from speech in Rwanda and Kenya prospectively.