A tinge of malice and mischief may have tainted the Bill ab initio. One is the stealth by which the senate introduced the legislation, taking it to the second reading; up to the public hearing, before notifying the critical stakeholders. If there was good faith, the media establishment ought to be part of the repeal from the outset.
Mischief in the sense that the new job, the Nigerian Press Council Act 1992 (Repeal and reenactment Bill 2018) purportedly seeks to promote high professional standard for the Nigerian press and deal with complaints emanating from members of the public about the conduct of journalists in their professional capacity or complaints emanating from the press about the conduct of persons or organisations towards the press in Nigeria. But of course there is surely a hint of sorcery in trying to shave a man’s hair without his consent or cooperation. All this good intention yet there was no prior meeting of minds with stakeholders.
Particularly troubling is the fact that a mess is being done to a document that was in itself a poor job. The law, both the extant and the one in the making, is riddled with lacunae, authoritarian tendencies, bad faith and mischief.
Some instances: What manner of a press council would give the Minister of Information the power to appoint all members of such council? Which professional regulatory body, more so a watchdog group, allows government to appoint more outsiders than stakeholders? What this means is that the law envisages the Nigerian Press Council (NPC) as an arm of the Federal Government, with powers to regulate the operations of the media.
The proposed council has wide powers to register publications and journalists alike. It determines the proper journalism training institutions and the right qualifications and even the character of a journalist. It also subsumes, almost totally, the powers of the courts, among other infringements on press and individual freedoms. Notably, the proponents of the bill are either blind-sided or incapable of thinking through the nexus between the media as private business entities, professional practice and a pressure group. Well-nuanced distinctions need to be made here.
It is remarkable that all stakeholders who ought to be partners in making this law have all castigated and rejected it. The Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN); the Nigerian Press Organisation (NPO); the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON); the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE); the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ); among others have all distanced themselves from it. They would neither support the making of the law nor send representatives to the council if the law was eventually passed. It is this position of critical stakeholders that stalled the NPC Act of 1992 and left it comatose and ineffectual. The same error has been made in the current attempt to repeal this Act.
First it is not for nothing that the press is described as the Fourth Estate of the Realm; it also must count for something that the constitution assigned crucial roles to the press, both in governance and the evolving democratic processes. These are not to be taken for granted. It, therefore, would be expected of the senate to act in utmost good faith and intentions must be seen to be based on crucial national interest in attempting to enact any law that would tinker with the freedom of the press.
It is also noteworthy that there is a subsisting matter in the Supreme Court seeking to debunk the extant law and establish if the senate has such powers to make laws controlling the press. Is it possible that the senate is not aware of this ongoing case? What is the great hurry in seeking to re-enact an Act that is contentious and under litigation?
Having made these points, while we know for a fact that press freedom is sacrosanct, we in no way suggest that the freedom of information is without limits. We do not subscribe to the opinion that media practice is to be carried out with absolute freedom and recklessness without an iota of control or accountability. On the contrary, we think that like any other profession, media practice must be carried out in accordance with best professional ethos by well-trained and certified practitioners and adopting carefully spelt-out professional ethics.
We expect practitioners to uphold the best standards of the trade as subsist in any part of the world. To achieve this, however, the rules and code of conduct must evolve organically. In other words, the practitioners and stakeholders must be partners in this effort. The role of the press and its sensitive nature in the scheme of things require that utmost good sense is brought to play in seeking to make laws to control or regulate the practice.
In conclusion, we aver that this exercise is not in good faith and has no intention to improve media practice in Nigeria. On the other hand, we think it was designed and hurriedly being enacted to censor and shackle the press.
By this act, the senate has once again presented itself as a shallow motley crew lacking in moral gravitas and statesmanship. At a period when Nigeria remains at the bottom of the global corruption index; at a period the executive branch is in deep rot, the legislature is anathema to national development and justice is largely for sale, one would expect laws to strengthen the capacity of the media to hold public officials to account for the good of all and the very survival of the country.
The senators are narrow-minded; they would rather disable the press.
