Our
attention has been drawn to a statement by the Leadership Newspaper titled
“Statement on the Arrest and Detention of LEADERSHIP journalists” (April 10).
The latest episode in the matters arising from the same newspaper's publication
of an alleged “Presidential Directive” which we have had cause to disavow
because the basis of the story proved to have been a dubious 'bromide'
containing nothing more than “a mishmash of carefully arranged and concocted
lies, presented to the public as evidence of a document emanating from the
presidency.” Yet, the Leadership newspaper insisted that “it stood by its
story.”
As a
responsible government committed to providing good governance and protecting
the rule of law, the rebuttal from the presidency was appropriate; yet its
symbolism runs far deeper. It ordinarily
ought to have motivated all concerned with or related to the process and issues
contained therein, particularly the publishers and editors, to double check
their claims, and where errors had been made, to quickly retract the story. This would have been in line with the ethics
of professionalism, good conduct and unbiased reporting.
This
approach reflects the crucial role of a bridge which a best-practice media
performs, in the management of the civil engagement between elected officials
and the citizenry. Underpinning this social contract is the principle that the
freedom of expression goes hand in hand with great responsibility. Given the
Leadership Newspaper's insistence that it stood by its story, questions are
automatically raised about professional ethics and the social responsibility of
the media, which certainly, by the rules and codes of practice of the various
media associations in the country do not accommodate the publication of
falsehood, or inciting material, or the abuse of the media's constitutional
mandate.
The
circulation of a fictitious 'presidential directive' that seeks in the main to
cause civil strife, engender a breakdown of law and order, and negate the
values of our democracy is a very grievous act indeed that should not be
ignored. At its core, such a disruptive act erodes the ethos of governance and
professionalism and naturally stirs up those entrusted with the protection of
law and order; as it should also, every responsible citizen, interest group and
the entire media. In that regard, President Jonathan did not have to issue any
orders before those who have as much constitutional responsibility as the
media;that is, the police, see the need to act in the public interest.
Without
holding brief for the law enforcement and security agencies, such a
publication, like all others that threaten our democracy and undermine law and
order, become the duty of the Police as an institution to investigate. The
Leadership newspaper should see this as an opportunity to co-operate with the
police as required by the laws of the land.
The Police have not done anything outside the law. The trite rule is
that nobody is above the laws of the land. It is also within the powers of the
Police to invite persons for questioning and to conduct investigations, which
is what they have done so far in “The Leadership case”. Or are the editors of
the Leadership newspaper insisting that they are above the laws of the
land?
This
administration believes in and has demonstrated its commitment to press freedom
times over. The Freedom of Information Bill (FOI) was signed by this President
into law and under this government the Nigerian print and electronic media has
grown in number, reach and in terms of freedom to practise. It will be disingenuous
to suggest that there is a clampdown of any sort or an attempt to stifle the
press.
Why
shouldn't journalists normally cooperate with the police in this instance? We
believe that it has to do with the fundamentals of professional ethos that make
journalists operate with a different set of loyalties and a different set of
outcomes. Yet,there should be no contradiction under normal circumstances where
the pursuit of peace and democracy deepening is concerned. This should
ordinarily have been an opportunity for the 'media' to help our democracy by
collectively rejecting the publication of pure falsehood.
As recently
as March 12, 2013 in the United Kingdom, detectives working with the
Metropolitan Police's Operation Elveden, an on-going British police
investigation into corrupt payments to public officials, placed two journalists
under covert surveillance by police investigating corruption and bribery
allegations against journalists. This process was considered a crowding out of
press freedom with a number of people settling for an open invitation by the
police for questioning, as was done in previous invitations with regards to
Operation Weeting - covering investigations of The News of the World which led
to numerous arrests, detentions and eventual convictions.
The
developments at The News of the World, which centre around the resort to
illegal means to obtain and/or publish otherwise dubiously obtained information
led to the setting up of the Leveson Inquiry, a judicial public inquiry into
the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. The Inquiry published
the Leveson Report in November 2012, which reviewed the general culture and
ethics of the British media, and made recommendations for a new, independent,
body to replace the existing Press Complaints Commission, which would be
recognised by the state through new laws. Some of the changes recommended
include sweeping measures that will allow police officers to demand information
from sources; rights for police to seize materials from the press, changes that
may force journalists to reveal whistleblowers' identities; and other rule
changes that may define freedom of speech. To show the extent of an ordered
approach, part 2 of the inquiry has since been deferred until after criminal
prosecutions regarding events at The News of the World are concluded.
In Nigeria,
the place of our media is well regarded by the government and its freedom
within the law, is regarded as sacred. The Nigerian media is self-regulated and
is required to abide by defined codes of ethics. The incident with the
Leadership newspapers is not an attempt by the government to muzzle a critical
bridge in the societal value chain. Rather, it reflects the professional gaps
that need to be bridged within the profession as the media continues to play
its very crucial and necessary role in nation-building.
This
development therefore offers the media an opportunity for introspection, one
that requires an emphasis on the responsibility of a media house as regards
issues of ethics and professionalism;and extends in the main to how such a
media house builds corporate governance rules to ensure that reckless,
unfounded and grossly misleading publications have no place in the esteemed
profession and outputs from its stable.
Nigerians
fought so hard to end an era whereby serious attempts were made to muzzle the
media and our recent history will attest to the heroic role played by the media
in our emergent democracy. We intend for that to continue and welcome
unfettered contributions, investigations and accountability audit of those
holding public office today and tomorrow.
What must
not be encouraged is voodoo journalism or the deliberate and malicious attempt
to use a medium that is designed to inform to now take on the inglorious task
of being a mouthpiece for a narrow agenda based on disinformation, deliberate
scaremongering, civil society baiting and the offer of media platform(s) to
those hell-bent on causing disharmony through well-woven conspiracies.
This
government is proud of its record on press freedom, its relationship with and
promotion of access for the media and civil society. The publication of a
spurious document and the alarmist approach to the routine invitation extended
to the Leadership journalists should of itself provide proof of a choreographed
attempt to deliberately cast the administration in a bad light; especially
given the synchronized communications from the newspaper, the Action Congress
of Nigeria, and others.
Once again,
we urge the Nigerian public and the media to pay careful attention to those who
parade themselves under different garbs and push forth information intended to
subvert the cause of peace and order. The Nigerian government remains a
committed advocate of a free but responsible media that can and should hold the
government to account even as it seeks to educate and inform the citizenry for
whom we are all responsible. This is the social contract we are all agreed to,
for and on behalf of the Nigerian public.
Dr. Reuben
Abati is Special Adviser (Media and Publicity) to President Goodluck Jonathan
0 comments:
Post a Comment