By Tonnie Iredia
No other group played a greater role than the media in the struggle for Nigeria’s independence. The British had to harass Nigerian media professionals using obnoxious laws that confiscated freedom of speech in the colony. The Newspaper Ordinance of 1903, the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909, the Criminal Code of 1916 and the Newspaper Registration Act of 1917 were all enacted to gag the press from continuing to criticise the colonial government. For the same reason, media freedom was in absolute jeopardy during military rule as several anti-media decrees were promulgated to scare off all activists especially the media.
To prohibit the circulation of any newspaper considered detrimental to any part of the country, the Head of the federal military government was empowered by the draconian provisions of Decree No. 17 of 1967. That was the spirit behind the banning of the New Breed Magazine in 1978 as well as Concord and Punch Newspapers in 1993. Decree No. 11 of 1976 was another legislation which made it an offence for any person to publish any false allegation of corruption. To instil fear into all media professionals that it would not tolerate investigative journalism in matters of public finances, the same Decree was quickly reproduced as No. 4 of 1984 when the military returned to power in December 1983.
The point to be made is that any elite group in Nigeria that finds itself in power usually resorts to the harassment of the media so as to avoid accountability. Our so-called democrats have been the worst because in their own case, they have continued to gag the media in breach of extant laws especially Section 22 of the Nigerian Constitution which mandates the media to hold government accountable to the people. The offending elite does not have to be at the highest level of governance; it could be done even at the lowest local level. For example, in 2020 a journalist was allegedly arrested on the orders of the chairman of Ohaukwu local government council in Ebonyi state. Following agitation by the media demanding to know the offence of the journalist, he was released some hours later without a single charge.
The implication of the trend in which everyone fights the media – colonialists, military dictators and pseudo democrats and their agents, is that because no one really wants to do what is right, they all have something to hide. Yet, the media has a duty to expose what is wrong which is why opposition politicians cherish the media. But as soon as they get into power, the media is immediately seen as an opponent or at best a spy paid to work against the government of the day. Nigeria is thus made up of groups that are ever suspicious of media activities at one point or the other. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for the media to be blamed for the failings of others with some refuting statements that people watched them make in the media.
I often wonder what our leaders have in mind when they keep sermonizing to the media on issues of patriotism or social responsibility. Last week, I watched parts of speech credited to the new INEC chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan (SAN) admonishing the media to endeavour to always be fair and responsible. Every day, it utterly confuses me to hear one government spokesperson or the other credited with calls to the media to join the government in building our nation. I honestly don’t know what those unity speeches mean. Is that how to hold government accountable to the people? Until very recently, I used to think that the best way for the media to help government is for it to point out areas needing attention so they can be redressed.
In the case of INEC, I could not rationalize why the Broadcasting Organizations of Nigeria BON imagined that the INEC boss was best positioned to address their 81st General Assembly. If it was because the Assembly was expected to elect new leaders, they should have known that the man they invited was yet to conduct any election having just assumed office. Besides, should BON not have distanced itself from INEC, as soon as it made a decision that heated-up the political environment? Well may be the organizers of the BON assembly love Latin and needed a man who might further illuminate ‘statusquo ante bellum’ by introducing more terminologies of the dead language.
But Amupitan didn’t go that way; he merely returned to the status quo of people drawing attention to perceived ills of the media. He spoke about the essence of fair coverage, equal time and the sore topic of media responsibility. In the case of equal and fair coverage, there is so much that the guest speaker may not have known; the most important being the contributory negligence of some political parties. Equal time and fair coverage can only be given to parties who come forward for political broadcasts. Many don’t come. While the ruling party stays away because some of its members do not want their leaders to be insulted, the smaller ones have no capacity for the engagement.
If a political party organises 4 political rallies in 2 months, while another has 8 events every week, how can the media equalize the opportunity available to all parties? If an incumbent uses law enforcement agencies to block opposition parties from public media and venues, where does fair coverage stand? In addition, fair and equal coverage is not a matter of logic. It is instead deeply engrained in professional practice. Media coverage is not expected to be done to please INEC or other segments, it is done in line with professional guidelines and ethical values. In every event there are interested parties who think it is only what suits them that should be emphasized.
In the media, a news angle is the work of the relevant reporter who picks what stands out to him as the highlight, it does not have to tally with the stance of an interested party. INEC is free to expect that what matters most at a polling centre is the counting of votes but the media may decide that the permanent lateness of election officials to an event makes more news. That would be reflected in addition to the counting of votes. By so doing, the media uses one stone to kill two birds by announcing the results of an election in addition to holding INEC as an agency of government accountable to the people. To INEC, that does not show the media as responsible.
Urging the media to uphold fairness, to avoid misinformation and indeed to be responsible is not really bad. The only issue is that it looks like a stone thrown from a glasshouse. How much of responsibility has INEC shown in its work? No matter how close a voting centre is to INEC structures, election personnel and materials are always generally late. During an election petition, INEC deliberately works against the petitioner by playing games with the release of relevant materials needed for the case. They begin to tell us how hard it is to retrieve information from their own branches whereas everyone knows that it is nothing more than a strategy to frustrate the petitioner.
Under Amupitan, it would have been nice to see a fire-brand posture the way ADC was threatened the other day. For example, INEC knows that the only way a person can be a governor in Nigeria is to be sponsored and elected under the platform of a political party. There is no other way. Consequently, a firebrand announcement from INEC should have since stated that while it has no power to remove a governor from office, all governors are listed in the INEC portal as sponsored and elected under the banner of a particular party. If that had happened everyone would have been scared of INEC now and perhaps no one would have been engaged in premature electioneering campaigns.
Second, Amupitan must not be seen to support the plan by politicians to change election results under INEC cover. Again, as part of the firebrand innovations of the time the INEC boss should work for a change in the practice where INEC who conducted an election has no obligation to defend it. It suggests that the electoral body as an agency of government is unaccountable to the public. Also, the impression that no one can announce an election result before INEC declares a winner is wrong.
Any election result announced at any level can be publicised by the media provided it was announced by the INEC designated official. If INEC declares a different figure from magical late night collation, it should also be published by the media while INEC is left to determine the credible result. It’s all about responsibility.
