What The Papers Say
National Concord, Nigeria
Decree 4 remains indefensible
Right from the very day it was promulgated in March this year, the Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 54 1984, has been the focus of consistent opposition from the generality of patriotic and well-meaning Nigerians. Over the months since then, the considerations upon which this opposition was anchored have been elaborately dwelt upon, as much in this news- paper as in every other public opinion forum in the country. It came as a regrettable surprise, therefore, that at a time when the common expectation was that the government was approaching the revocation of this decree, the Head of State, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari came out recently in its defence.In view of General Buhari's renewed justification of the decree, we feel compelled to clearly restate the considerations that informed the popular opposition to it, over the past six months. First, while it is not contested that public servants do deserve to be shielded against false accusations, such protection as we have repeatedly stated should never have been exclusive to any category of Nigerians. Every citizen, whether in public or private service ought in fact to be entitled to such protection. And it was precisely in recognition of this, that the nation's legal system has had within it, clearly outlined provisions against slander, libel, defamation of character, and countless other actions as could unjustly dent or jeopardise the integrity of any citizen.
And these laws, as often as they have been applied, have not been found wanting. What then was that extraordinary consideration that necessitated the promulgation of this decree? Secondly, while conceding that newspapers, occasionally do err in their reports, it has been the common practice for editors on such occasions to retract the inaccurate reports in question, correct the inaccuracies and tender apologies. Otherwise, public and private organisations and individuals do frequently tender rejoinders and corrections, thereby ensuring that the necessary standards of precision and accuracy in public information are maintained. In view of the existence of these functional remedial avenues, there- fore, the decree was totally uncalled for, and absolutely unnecessary.
Thirdly, quite contrary to General Buhari's declaration that the Nigerian press is still as free and unfettered as its British counterpart, Decree No. 4 makes a great deal of difference. Nothing whatsoever prevents the British Press from publishing a report so long as the contents are reasonably correct. But Decree 4 is not only against the publication of falsehood, it is also against the publication of any report "which brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Military Government or the government of a state or a public officer to ridicule or disrepute", even if the report is true in every material particular. This obviously constitutes a gag on the press, a hindrance from the total pursuit of its responsibilities, a limitation to its freedom.
It is as strange as it is unfortunate that the government promulgated this odious decree, even after the sedition laws of the colonial administrators had been struck off by the Federal Appeal Court of this country, last year. And it is stranger still that the present military regime committed as it is to the noble ideals of probity, accountability and discipline in every facet of our public life, thought it wise to promulgate a decree of this nature, which manifestly under- mines the pursuit of those ideals. Even so, all is not yet lost.
The government can still repeal this decree. That, and no less, is what Nigerians expect it to do.
The Punch, Nigeria
Checks and balances
The two concepts of liberty and authority in a political system have long engaged the attention of legal experts and social scientists. The reason for this interest is not far to seek. The extent to which a nation-state, through govern- ment, reconciles these two basic ingredients of life, determines the failure or success of that nation-state. Empirical reality shows that it was an attempt to find solutions to the conflicting problems and check the abuse of power by public functionaries that the doctrine of separation of powers evolved.The doctrine of separation of powers is meant to ensure that the function of effective governance is performed by three arms: legislature, executive and judiciary. While the legislature makes laws guiding societal relations and inter- actions and the executive implements these legislative decisions, the judiciary translates the laws and ensures that equity and justice prevail.
This arrangement ensures that too much power is not concentrated in the hands of one arm as there is the likelihood of abuse because of human weakness. With the separation, checks and balances are built into the political system.
In normal situations, the above delicate arrangement makes for rapport between the government and the governed, irrespective of the type of democracy, whether it is the Westminster system of Britain or the Presidential variation of America.
Under the military the three principal arms of govern- ment, legislative, executive and to some extent, the judiciary have coalesced into one, and it would be naive to dismiss as not-existent, the dangers of abuse of power. This assertion is based on the premise that military governments, like any other human contrivance, run by human beings, are subject to human frailties.
We therefore call on the present administration to consider seriously the issue of unchaining and further strengthening the Fourth Estate of the Realm, the Nigerian press, by abrogating Decree Four and removing other obstacles that hinder the gathering, processing and dis- semination of information in Nigeria.
We argue that the existence of an unfettered press will sustain the credibility of the present administration both internally and internationally. This is the only way to preempt destructive rumours and prevent the small but powerful elite groups at the corridors of power from misadvising the government and alienating it from the people.
Only an informed public could arrive at informed decis- ions, contribute intelligently, defend the sovereignty of their nation and exhibit refined behavioural characteristics that distinguish patriots and nationalists from opportunists. The press has responsibility for the information inputs necessary for the development of an informed and responsible citizenry.
We conclude by repeating that, at 24, Nigerian journalists should be unchained to be able to contribute their quota to national revival as their predecessors did to national emancipation in the pre-independence era.
And with every sense of responsibility, we repeat the call for the repeal of the incapacitating Decree No. 4.
