The police wanted the journalist to reveal the source of their story...which claimed that the presidency was planning to scuttle the merger of APC and target key leaders of the emerging political party.
The journalists arrested are: Mrs. Chinyere Fred-Adegbulugbe, the director of human capital; Mr. Chuks Ohuegbe, managing editor; Mr. Tony Amokeodo, the group news editor; and Mr. Chibuzor Ukaibe, a political reporter.
The presidency has released a statement concerning the matter via presidential spokesman, Reuben Abati. Find the statement after the cut...
State House Press Release
Leadership Newspaper, Media Responsibility and
the Police
By Reuben Abati
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 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
April 10, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment