Press Censorship In Nigeria
“Any type of control of the press in any nation is, of course, unhealthy for democracy and human decency. It is admitted that the Nigerian press suffers from the same general malaise enveloping all the sections of the society … but nation deserve the press it gets.”
Chief Alade Odunewu, old of Allah-De column of the Daily Times, has finally gone back to his typewriter to do what he does best: write. In an incisive piece, Allah-De took on Chief Richard Akinjide on a paper that the minister of justice presented at a human rights forum in which he more or less called for a form of press censorship in Nigeria. Chief Akinjide had argued in his paper that Section 36 of the Constitution which gave some form of protection to the press should not be read to mean that journalists were protected from disclosing their sources of information. Chief Akinjide went on to quote cases decided in the United Kingdom and the United States in which he conveniently found areas were judges tended to compel the press to disclose their sources. I wouldn’t know much about Britain, but I know enough the history of the press in the United States to accuse Chief Akinjide of patent disingenuousness. He should have added that in such cases, the judges were trying criminal litigations in which sources of journalists could help them in deciding their cases. Chief Akinjide could have added in his paper, if he wanted to be fair in his argument, that journalists in the United States have opted for the goals rather than disclose their sources.
The latest of such cases involved a correspondent of the New York Times whose expose forced a case already closed to be reopened and retried. The Times reporter refused the judge’s directives that he should name his sources. The reporter was jailed, and the newspaper was fined heavily for everyday that both correspondent and the paper refused to divulge their sources. The case was tried all the way without the Times and its correspondent bulging. It was only later that the governor of New Jersey where the case occurred pardoned the Times and the correspondent of their convictions for defying the judge. Now, Richard Akinjide who made a name for himself by writing an occasional column in the Daily Times would like the press to be gagged indirectly, since journalists would be able to carry out their constitutional obligations of breaking stories if they couldn’t protect their sources of information. It would be difficult to understand what Chief Akinjide intended to gain by saying the press should not have this basic protection in the pursuance of its calling, that of gaining the confidence of sources in gathering information. One would have thought that as the chief law enforcement officer in an open republic, Chief Akinjide was solemnly enjoined to make available an atmosphere in which the press will enjoy maximum freedom. Realising the importance of the press, Chief Akinjide quickly sent out his paper to most of the nation’s papers for publication. He was eager to enjoy the limelight accorded by access to the press, but he was enthusiastic in creating an envelope of darkness for the same press.
Chief Odunewu did more than justice to Chief Akinjide’s paper which he reduced to an academic exercise in ostentatious futility. His paper, that is Chief Akinjide’s, came at a time of general warfare against the Nigerian press by various arms of the Federal Government, and the situation deserves to be looked at seriously. Sunday Adewusi, the Inspector-General of Police, has been frying in the fire he set off, at least the fire set off by his department, that newspapers should send advanced copies to him on the night preceding publication. Although he has denied knowledge of the offending circular, nobody, not even possibly Adewusi himself, believe the denial. A specious investigation consisting senior police officials who were in the main bening accused of indiscretion in the matter has been put together to get to the bottom of it all. But the issue really was that these men were accused as those in the bottom of the matter, how then can they credibly conduct this sort of investigation? And as though all that were not horrendous enough, the House of Representatives Committee on Public Relations sent out a ragtag invitation to the nation’s media chiefs. The intention of the invitation was to afford the representatives the chance to brief the media chiefs on the nature of the amendments to the Electoral Bill as they affect the press. The amendments in question said that a committee of the representatives of the parties contesting in elections should monitor government-owned media in their coverage of the elections. The House committee said in the hazy photocopied letters to the media executives that they wanted to explain that the amendments did not amount to censorship as the press had consistently charged.
The whole thing was that seriously for all the journalists to turn up from all over the country. The meeting was set for 11. a.m. Nobody received the journalists to the conference room, and it was not until 11.45 a.m. that an official of the House came to apologise for the non-appearance of the committee members whom he said he was trying to “gather.” The media executives told the harried man that they would leave at 12 noon if the supposedly honourable men failed to materialize, and the media left in a huff.
One would be kind to call these men, who have failed to appreciate that they were no more than public servants, irresponsible and dishohourabl. It showed the type of regard they have for the press, and it explained why they, Chief Akinjide and Sunday Adewusi, thought nothing of tinkering with the press which, with all its failings, was still the only element of the society best constituted to safeguard the nation’s freedom. It was apposite, considering all this, to devote the ‘last word’ to the efforts made elsewhere in the world to gag the press.
Last Word
Any type of control of the press in any nation is, of course, unhealthy for democracy and human decency. It is admitted that the Nigerian press suffers from the same general malaise enveloping all the sector of the society. The press can only be as good as the nation; said another way, the nation deserves the press it gets. Choking the press will make the situation worse, and make it impossible for the press little. The following two excerpts from editorials published in the New York Times and the London Times provide enough food for thoughts for those among us who want to murder the truth.
From the New York Times:
The dubious proposals advanced in the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to license journalists have so far survived the denunciation of Western editors. But now they face a more formidable threat: embrace, by imitation, from South Africa. An official South African commission has proposed a law to make it illegal to hire an unlicensed journalist or publish reports from any such journalists. The commission contends that its proposals – which the government indicates it’s eager to enact – are a response to the “onslaught” of hostile propaganda about South Africa from all sides including “the English-speaking White ‘Western democratic’ world.” Yet, with characteristic South African bluntness, the commission invokes its real concern. Citing the country’s “First and Third-World population mix,” it worries that unregulated reporting could have” a much greater impact upon the often unsophisticated, half-illiterate mind.” In other words, regulated reporting would have just the right kind of impact. Until now, South Africa’s friends have pointed to a relatively free press as one of the few signs that Pretoria is the capital of a democracy society. This proposal would go a long was toward making the press yet another instrument of entrenched white political power. The only thing democrats can register about such proposals is disgust.
From the Times of London:
Visitors to South Africa are often surprised by the apparent freedom of the press. This freedom has been steadily diminished, but enough remains to be of value. If the recommendations just published by a committee under Mr. Justice Marthinus Steyn are made law, even that will be put in doubt. A closer confinement of the press must have a damaging effect on South African life. Even the most optimistic predictions for the country foresee difficult but unavoidable adjustments for white South Africans. For that they will need as much information as possible. How will they get it without a free press?
©Sunday Concord, February 21, 1982
(Pp.149-152)
