Between accountable and seditious journalism

The Guardian, one of Nigeria’s reputable newspapers, published a front-page lead story in its October 25, 2024 edition that has elicited different reactions. Titled, “Calls for military Intervention: Misery, Harsh Policies Driving Nigerians to Desperate Choices” and written by Eno-Abasi Sunday, the article attempted to present the country’s fouled socio-economic environment which has left many people confused about the present and unenthusiastic about tomorrow. No objective assessment is likely to place all the blame for this difficult climate on the incumbent administration of President Bola Tinubu. Neither can the excruciating impact of its handling of this dire situation be successfully denied.

But the president’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga, read and understood the writeup differently. His prompt response, not totally unexpected though, declared that it “openly incites unrest against President Bola Tinubu’s administration and advocates regime change under the guise of journalism. The inflammatory headline and content deviate from responsible reporting. The Guardian’s agenda is unmistakable from the cover illustration to the article.” That describes sedition nicely. A publication or transmission is deemed seditious if it aims to engineer contempt or hatred for the nation or parts of it, or its helmspersons, particularly the president and heads of subnational units. No doubt, just like the country itself, the leaders, as custodians of its sovereignty, deserve some protection from the attacks that come with the discharge of their duties.

Mr Onanuga’s stylistic analysis of the feature further confirms his anger: “In attempting to create a balanced veneer, the author condemns military rule while fanning the flames of military intervention. This is evident in the introduction to the article where the newspaper wrote: ‘Nigerians were exhilarated with the return of democracy in 1999, but 25 years on, the buccaneering nature of politicians, their penchant for poor service delivery, morbid hatred for probity, accountability, and credible/transparent elections, among others, are forcing some flustered citizens to make extreme choices, including calling for military intervention in governance….’”

If that had been written in the nation’s era of military intervention in politics, it surely would have explicitly included items like subversion and subversive elements. The presidential aide, actually a veteran of journalistic battles against soldiers in government, arguably resorted to this line of rebuttal mainly because of his current job description of speaking for his boss, a position that can prove to be opposed to a cardinal, longstanding duty of true journalism: standing on the side of the governed.

If his role were reversed, he probably would have used the same words as Mr Sunday’s, or even more blunt ones. The Guardian’s piece read in part: “Juxtaposed with military rule, the difference between both (the second being civilian) is something akin to six and half a dozen. This is indeed the dilemma that most hapless citizens have found themselves in, which has now forced some of them to tinker with extreme choices, including calling for returning the military to governance. By whatever nomenclature or appellation it goes by, military rule is an aberration in modern society, given the repressive, rapacious and gluttonous tendencies of its practitioners.

“Gross absence of truth, transparency, and sincerity of purpose are some of the vestiges of long years of military governance that the country has endured. Not only has military rule been more of a curse than a blessing in the country, it has stunted the growth of democratic ideals, which ought to have blossomed in the country. Today, the massive scars on the country’s democratic canvass have been both evident and indelible, just as the temperament, actions and inactions of the political class continue to betray sound civic and democratic culture. Research confirms this, rightly establishing that military rule has done more damage to the country’s psyche than good….” What better way to express the popular angst of Nigerians while shaming “desperate” considerations? And since when did the expression of people’s frustrations and how their lives are depreciating rapidly become instigating?

The Guardian’s defence is apt, in my view: “Contrary to the assertion contained in the press statement (Onanuga’s), the story is a factually balanced, dispassionate, well-researched and intensive report chronicling Nigeria’s civilian administration from inception to the current state of affairs, without any atom of hateful or inciting elements, remarks, innuendoes, and or connotations against the national and sub-national governments of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The publication simply aggregated the concerns of Nigerians across all classes on the troubling state of the nation with the expectation that the government will take the necessary steps to address the challenges. There is nothing in the report that advocates, propagates, endorses or suggests a military overthrow of the current government….” If anything, the presidential reply may have unwittingly given credence to the fear in many quarters that the government has since shielded itself from the realities of everyday life in Nigeria. That would be tragic.

One thing is certain. The way most Nigerians perceive those who occupy political offices at various levels is now at an all-time low. And even with all their own shortcomings, Nigerian mass media organisations and professionals can’t afford to sleep on their statutory task of constantly watching these personalities on behalf of an increasingly dejected populace. Professor Ayo Olukotun made this point in a 2003 article titled, “Traditional Protest Media and Anti-military Struggle in Nigeria” and published in Issues in Nigerian Media History: 1900-2000AD, edited by Ralph Akinfeleye and Innocent Okoye. Inspired by Karl Maier’s seminal work, This House Has Fallen: Midnight in Nigeria, Olukotun wrote: “In Nigeria’s infant democracy, the (traditional) media resources can be used to spread democratic values, as well as give information on voting dates, mechanisms and the electoral regime in general. They can also assist in holding in check Nigeria’s predatory ruling class, whose corruption and lack of accountability constitute a threat to the new civil order.”

That fresh dispensation, the fourth republic, is now 25 years old. On a good day, the desirability and superiority of democracy far above militarism aren’t even contestable. Comparing representative governance with jackboot regimes is like equating light with darkness. But, then, socio-political dynamics is not always rational. Social media contains videos of despondent Nigerian citizens calling on soldiers to take over power. Even military authorities have come up a couple of times to discourage such and pledge their loyalty to the governing civil structures. Rubbishing “Calls for Military Intervention” is, therefore, misplaced.

Onanuga’s overreaction aside, the need for the press generally to regulate itself is as vital as the responsibility of vigilantly maintaining its freedom against all odds. This standpoint is well captured by Nkem Fab-Ukuzor in a 2003 article, “Democracy and Media Regulation: An Overview”, published in Polimedia: Media and politics in Nigeria, and edited by Professor Ikechukwu Nwosu. According to him, “In addition to professional codes, many media organisations have formulated their own institutional policies for conduct. These are policy books and editorial policies which spell out standards for everyday operations and identify company positions on specific issues. Many media organisations in developed countries also utilise ‘ombudspersons’ – practitioners internal to the company who serve as ‘judges’ in disputes between the public and the organisation.

“Some media organisations subscribe to the small number of people from both the media and the public who investigate complaints against the media from the public and publish their findings. These mechanisms of normative ethics are a form of self-regulation, designed in part to forestall more rigorous or intrusive government regulation. In a democracy dependent on mass communication, they serve an important function.” The logic here is simple: self-check is critical to rendering external, sometime stringent, regulations impotent.

Ekpe, PhD, is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board.