Last week was one of those unpredictable weeks. You wake up to face the day and you don’t know how and what the day will bring. One phone call could change a lot of calculations. One tweet could alter everything. One statement could set off a chain of reactions.
It was a week of unprecedented happening. The good and the bad news competed for space. Earthquake in Nepal claimed almost 5,000 lives, with several thousands injured. Even those who were on top of Mount Everest were not spared.
In Nigeria, we had a mixed bag. The good news was that the strategic invasion Sambisa Forest – the stronghold of the terrorist group, Boko Haram – by the ‘transformed’ Nigerian military brought freedom to 450 hostages.
When the news hit the media, joy erupted in some quarters. A lot of people hoped and believed that the Chibok schoolgirls were among those set free. My reaction was simple: every person freed from the captivity of Boko Haram is important.
My prayer is that Chibok schoolgirls be freed; not because of how important they are as individuals, but because they are precious human beings who committed no crime of any kind and therefore do not deserve to be subjected to any kind of slavery by these blood thirsty villains.
For once, I agree with the Governor of Borno State, Kashim Shettima who said: “They (those rescued) are important to us and words cannot explain how pleased we are.
“We are particular about the Chibok schoolgirls because of the peculiar manner in which they were kidnapped and how that kidnap has redefined the Boko Haram insurgency. Their kidnap is very symbolic because their kidnappers are opposed to western education, especially female education.
“The entire world…is desperate about the rescue of the Chibok schoolgirls in order not to allow the ideology held by the insurgents to thrive and to encourage education which is the foundation of any human or society that seeks to develop.” I completely agree with him.
The bad news was the sack of African Independent Television (AIT) from covering the activities of the president-elect, Muhammadu Buhari. The reason cited was that AIT engaged in certain unprofessional conducts during the political campaigns and therefore should be punished.
Our beloved Garba Shehu, spokesman to Buhari, found it pretty difficult explaining the reasons behind the sack of AIT from reporting events surrounding his boss. With his experience, I’m sure the former President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) knew that no matter the magnitude of events surrounding the sack, there are better ways of handling such issues.
This was what he told one of the news medium: “AIT has been asked to step aside based on security and family concerns. In addition, Buhari has decided that they will have to resolve some issues relating to issues of standard and ethics.
“We will be talking with them to try and resolve the matter, but for now the station has been asked to stay aside because, like I said, there are some family and security concerns. They have been asked to step down their coverage until we resolve the matter with them on ethics and standards.
“You can quote me that I said that we have asked them to step aside and that we are resolving the issues of ethics and standards with them.”
That left me wondering: who is better positioned to resolve issues of ethics and standards in journalism practice? Is it a retired military dictator whose democratic credentials are yet to be tested, or a court of law?
Buhari’s order against AIT is a display of the dictatorial hangover of the military era. AIT is even lucky. If the President-Elect had assumed office, their operational license would have been withdrawn and the operators sent to jail without trial.
Let’s assume that AIT displayed unprofessional conducts during the just concluded general elections as alleged by the complainant. Was the station reported to the regulatory body—the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission?
If that was done and no satisfactory action was taken by the regulatory body, did the aggrieved party take the station to court where both parties would have a level-paying opportunity of stating their cases and defending themselves?
My point is that if AIT had messed up, it is demanded in a civilised society that he who has been messed up goes to court. That is where AIT would have opportunity to defend itself, retract or justify what it did; and if found guilty, get punished.
For the president-elect to wake up from sleep and arbitrarily demand that a massively influential media organisation like the AIT be barred from reporting events around him is a sign of worse things to come. I wonder what will happen to the leadership of NBC in the evening of May 29.
No one person, no matter his temperament or the size and depth of the political powers he controls, should be the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge in his own case.
It is the duty of the media to report events; and to do so responsibly. Where there is any trace of irresponsibility, there are clear legal procedures the complainant is expected to follow.
Someone will do well to tell the general that what was fashionable 30 years ago when he ruled Nigeria with iron hand is no longer acceptable today. Transformation has been here. Change has since taken place.