Bogey of bringing down governments
The latest indication that all is not well between the Federal Military Government of Nigeria (FMG) and the country's press was manifested in a most enigmatic one inch statement on the front page of the National Concord.
The terse announcement which appeared on the paper's issue of Thursday November 22 said "The editor of National Concord, Mr Duro Onabule, who was taken away on Friday by the NSO, is still with the NSO when we are going to press.
Reports from Lagos indicate that Duro Onabule was picked up on Friday November 16 by officers of the Nigerian security organisation as a result of an article published on Page 3 of the Friday November 9 issue under Mr Onabule's TODAY column headlined "Bogey of Bringing Down Governments."
On the day that the Concord carried the statement of Mr Onabule's temporary sojourn with the NSO, it also carried a rejoinder to the article from Mr Okponung, the press secretary to the Ministry of Information.
We publish below extracts from the two articles, first Duro Onabule's which was a reaction to the reported statement of the Minister of Information that the Nigerian Press had a 'Bringing Down Government' syndrome.
Bogey of bringing down governments
Duro Onabule
It seems Information Minister Samson Omeruah has a neurotic obsession with his anti-press posture. It is of course needless to mention that this penchant of his is the product of a dramatic somersault which he did over his earlier rebuff for Nigeria Press not to flatter this administration. In those early days, he was so clear-cut in his message: The press should be bold enough to tell the government if things are going wrong instead of giving the misleading impression that everything was right.Some would argue that Omeruah's admonition was not necessary in the first place in that, if preceding governments had listened to warnings of the Press on how things were falling apart, we would not have been having intermittent changes of governments especially through military coups.
The latest of Group Captain Omeruah's anti-press posture was his futile attempt to dodge a tough question on Decree 4. He was being interviewed during the week-long 25th anniversary of television in Nigeria. We return to this later.
Samson Omeruah's fellow traveller's inability or unwillingness to appreciate the points in dispute in the apparent war against the press is Abuja Minister Major-General Mamman Vatsa who was reported in the New Nigerian of Friday October 26 to claim that it was untrue that the Federal Government was trying to drive private-owned newspapers out of business by starving or denying them import licences to purchase newsprint and other essential raw materials ...
It is the rationale behind this differential allocation of import licences to newspaper houses that Mamman Vatsa should explain to fellow Nigerians instead of loosely claiming that the Federal Government is not out to kill private newspapers. In any case, if unknown to our Abuja Minister, a government functionary higher in status than Major-General Vatsa, contemptuously told Newspaper Executives at a Press luncheon at State House, Marina that the bias against private newspapers in the issuance of import licences is a deliberate policy aimed at levelling the "confration" (whatever that means) of private newspapers. With that defiant explanation, how could Mamman Vatsa claim that the Federal Govern- ment was not out to kill private newspapers?
This brings us back to Information Minister Samson Omeruah. Cornered in a television interview not long ago, he desperately got out of a hopeless situation by resorting to the emotion of patriotism. Hear him: "Nigerian Press is still suffering from bring the government down' syndrome of the colonial era." Quite sentimental except that his accusation cannot stand either logic or history.
First, how did he come about his claim? Samson Omeruah was asked a straight question: The Minister is on record as saying that there is nowhere in the world where journalists are given special protection under the constitution in the practice of their profession. How about the United States where journalists are specially guaranteed under the constitution to enable them discharge their professional obligation!
The issue was not whether we should copy the United States in everything we do but that the information minister was obviously unexpectedly faulted in his knowledge of laws controlling the practice of the press. Rather than admit this fault, Samson Omeruah strayed off the line without making any point relating to the clear and concise question, and then anchored on the unfair claim that Nigerian Press had not yet got out of the "bring down government" syndrome of the colonial era. So much on point of fact which he could not dispute. Then, there is the point of history. The Press battle against the colonialists was not necessarily to bring down the government simply for the fun of it but a patriotic war that considering the prevailing injustice, Nigerians were entitled to and capable of controlling their affairs. Without that battle by Nigerians collectively (not just by the press alone) the Omeruahs in our midst and most of us will not be occupying our posts today.
And from Balewa Samson Omeruah is to Shagari, even more unjustified to accuse the press of still suffering from "bring down the government" syndrome. What really could he mean? That Shagari or any of those brought down before him for example did not deserve to be toppled? Then why is Omeruah serving among those who toppled Shehu Shagari?
Putting this aside, the Omeruahs in our midst should feel comfortable, and put their minds at rest. No government anywhere in the world can be brought down, (especially by the Press) if it does not deserve to be brought down. That is, no matter the influence of any newspaper, as long as the government meets the yearnings of the people, there is not much a newspaper can do to bring such a government down. If on the other hand, people have no confidence in a government to meet their needs, it requires no newspaper to bring down such a government.
Fortunately, post-independence Nigeria's political history is replete with facts of how newspapers unsuccessfully tried to prop up tottering administrations in the past. Such governments did not only eventually fall but also along with the newspapers concerned. Equally, particular military administration there had been in the past which experienced a most critical press. Yet, that military administration survived and returned to the barracks. It is therefore clear that the determining factor in the survival of any government is the performance of that government itself and its evaluation by the people rather than the influence of the press whose role is only reflective.
There was also the self-contradiction of our minister of information. In one vein, Samson Omeruah said that the fact that the United States constitution provides special protection for journalists does not mean that Nigeria should copy that model. Fine, except that moments later he conveniently saw the British Press during the Dikko affair as a model for the Nigerian Press on grounds of patriotism. The minister was replying to a questioner who asked him to assess the performance of Nigerian Press both before and after Decree 4.
God! What Samson Omeruah was saying was that Nigerian Press lack patriotism. He even went on to reveal how a British journalist once asked him in London how he, Samson Omeruah, as minister of information was coping with the "Licentious" Nigerian Press.
There are two notes of interest here, the alleged lack of patriotism of Nigerian Press and the purported licentious nature of Nigerian Press. It is doubtful if at any appropriate time, the Dikko affair not excluded, Nigerian Press or Nigerians for that matter, could be faulted for patriotism. The only point is what was clearly missing during the Dikko affair - the normal public (especially students) demonstration against the foreign country concerned despite an indirect official soliciting for that demonstration.
Apart from this, Nigerian Press in fact saved the day for the Federal Government. And the press cannot be blamed for not inciting public demonstration.
What is more, patriotism does not mean "my country, right or wrong. After all, even in regimented societies like the Soviet Union, there are dissident elements. And if we may cite Omeruah's model of a patriotic press the one in Britain will pass as about the most licentious in the world. Some examples. A few years ago, British Press exposed how a man was caught in the bedroom of Queen Elizabeth. Could Nigerian Press ever publish such a story?
Then, this third example must interest Samson Omeruah for two reasons (i) as a member of the Armed Forces and (ii) because of his passion for patriotism as if other Nigerians are not patriotic. In recent weeks, British Press exposed how during the Falklands war in 1982, a British submarine unjustifiably sank an Argentinian ship, Belgrano carrying 400 men, all of whom perished. The press based their expose on the humanitarian ground that the Belgrano was in fact sailing away from any threat to British navy and should not have been sunk.
"Bogey of bringing down government" - a rejoinder
Duro Onabule may claim professionalism in his present job in the National Concord. It is a matter of concern that his professional exposure could not help him to contain his bitterness and rudeness towards the Federal Military Government and the Minister of Information and Federal Capital Territory in his publication titled "Bogey of Bringing Down Government,' on page 3 of National Concord of November 9, 1984.Before a detailed analysis of Onabule's diatribe is undertaken here, it is most apt to point out to him that some expressions which frequently featured in his write-up betrayed his inner motive. Apart from lacking refinement, such expressions are loaded with meaning and it might be in the interest of the nation to have him say his motive. A journalist should be refined in his language and at least be of good taste in his write-up even if he lacks answers. How can Onabule explain his bad taste to his reading public with his use of such inciting expressions "The Omeruahs in our Midst," "The Mamman Vastas of Nigeria,' "Abuja Minister" or referring to the minister of Federal Capital Territory as "Omeruahs fellow travellers." What actually was Onabule up to?
Anyone who watched carefully the Minister of Information's NTA interview which Onabule marked out for special attack and also read Onabule's write-up is constrained to feel that someone wants to give a dog a bad name in order to hang it. A critical review of both the minister's interview and Onabule's write-up leads to one of two conclusions that either for some ulterior motive, Onabule must have chosen to misinterpret the minister's answer during the NTA programme in order to leave him very vulnerable to his attack, or that Onabule himself did not understand what the minister said. The latter is not likely considering the insults in the write-up. One is left with the impression that someone is up to mischief.
Onabule interpreted the minister of information out of context and it is possible he did it for a purpose ulterior to his or an interest he represents. We may well look at the content of his diatribe. Onabule is on the payroll of National Concord, a paper that has since the issue of import licence on newsprint found it necessary to find fault with the Federal Military Government.
In his diatribe, Duro Onabule accused the Information Minister of having a "neurotic obsession with his anti-press posture." His reason for this outburst is that, the minister associated the press with a hang-over of "bring down syndrome."'
This observation by the minister, no matter how Onabule chooses to interpret it out of context cannot in any way justify referring to him as having a neurotic obsession with his anti-press posture." It would appear that Onabule and his Concord newspaper would welcome criticism when it has to do with the press against the governments. It becomes an anathema that must be resisted when government and government functionaries make any observation against the press even in good faith. It is safe to say that if Onabule and the paper he represents were the government, we would not be talking of Decree No. 4; we would be talking of closing down the press.
When the minister referred to the "bring-down syndrome" of the colonial era, what he meant was that during the colonial era, the nationalist press had a primary and set objective of not only informing, educating and entertaining the public, but also a sacred duty of dismantling the colonial regime. This was in tune with the demands of the period and in the interest of Nigeria. Today, after independence, the press has as its primary objective and sacred duty, helping to build a virile nation and not bringing down any government. That is not to say that the press should not offer useful and reasonable criticism. This does not mean that the press should close its eyes when the nation is being ravaged, looted or plundered.
Onabule in his gutter language referred to Major-General Mamman Vatsa as "Samson Omeruah's fellow travellers" and to what he called "the inability" of the "Abuja Minister" to approach what is involved in the apparent war against the press.
Dragging on the issue of import licence on newsprint in Onabule's attack against the Minister of Information, is a clear indication that the attack against the minister is only a part in the strategy of taking on the military government as a whole - a military government that in the eyes of Concord "may have been digging in for a long indefinite stay" (see National Concord editorial, Wednesday, November 7, 1984). What, also would this imply when the same editorial has said that the military would be making "a grievous mistake" to govern for long.
Onabule glibly accused the Minister of Information of dodging a tough question on Decree No. 4. But even before the NTA interview, the minister had extensively dealt with the issue of Decree NO. 4. It is difficult to placate an unrelenting foe. If not, why should Onabule still attack the minister on this? Has the minister not repeatedly pointed out that Decree No. 4 is not, and was not intended to be an inhibition to free flow of information? On the contrary, it is intended to give substance and value to information output, stop speculative reporting and publication of half truths and falsehood, and put paid to the spectre of sycophancy to which our mass media degenerated during the last regime.
When Onabule portrays the Minister of Information as saying that there is no place in the world where the press is given special protection, he immediately cites the U.S. as an example. The point is that Onabule chose not to view the minister's answers as a whole. He picks a portion that would support his own interpretation of the minister's statement. The minister amplified his statement by stressing on the responsibility of the press. Is Onabule claiming ignorance of the import of the Secondly, what does Onabule mean Press theory that borders on responsibility of the Press? Intrinsic in whatever constitutional guarantee of Press Freedom there is in the United States constitution is the understanding that guarantee is meant for a responsible press. There is nothing like absolute freedom of the press even in the United States constitution which Onabule referred to. So what is he talking about?
Onabule interpreted the minister's answer to the British journalist on how he was coping with "your licentious press" as an admission that the Nigerian Press was unpatriotic. Anyone who listened to the minister's answer to this question would tell Onabule to go to hell. Onabule is not foolish enough to appreciate the sarens in the minister's reply. Could he be daft enough not to appreciate that from the minister's statement, "I had to fire back" meant, that he, the minister considered it as insult for a British journalist to say that the Nigerian Press is licentious?
There is need to question and search for the motive of Onabule in his article. First, one is constrained to ask a few questions. Could Onabule be imputing that this Federal Military Government does shady and questionable falsification of documents to suit its purpose? This question is based on the fourth to the last paragraph of the article and I quote: "In Nigeria, Samson Omeruah would have described such expose by the press as unpatriotic and at any rate, the documents involved would have been labelled "classified" overnight to enable the government obtain prosecution against the newspapers concerned." What innuendo is this?
in the last paragraph by "But then, every beginning has an end?" To appreciate this statement, it might be necessary to quote the whole last paragraph "The present frustration against Nigerian Press is understandable. Decree 4 has not served its intended purpose. Hence the import licence starvation. But then, every beginning has an end?"
This is not merely an attack directed against either the Federal Minister of Information or the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory alone. It cuts across, bordering on government policy decisions of Decree 4, import licence of newsprint and Student Unionism. Onabule in this write-up had tried to incite Nigerian students by claiming that this Federal Government does not recognize them. This statement is a distortion. The Federal Government is in dialogue with Students Unions throughout the country.
The article is instructive enough and the government may well read the wolf-cry and take appropriate action to correct matters.
