Boko Haram: Now, 20 years jail for journalists

[SunNews]

Nigerian media gleefully reported President Goodluck Jonathan's (okay, Federal Government's) proscription of the deadly Boko Haram as duly merited, except that the buck stops on his table.

The only k-leg in the performance of the media is either ignorance of, or the inadequate attention, if any, paid to the grave consequences of the sweeping powers Jonathan has assumed to deal with the press in the current emergency.

Ordinary discharge of professional and constitutional obligation is now an offence for any journalist with the prospects of 20 years in jail, under Jonathan's new powers.

He may not intend it but that is the drastic effect. The concern is not the sweeping regulations as such but the violation of the constitutional right of the ordinary Nigerian to access information and the duty imposed on Nigerian media under fundamental objectives of the constitution.

Jonathan's frustration in tackling Boko Haram is understandable but the resultant aggression must not be visited on journalists and the media. Proscription of Boko Haram is therefore not disputable.

It is similarly not arguable if Jonathan had much room within which to tackle Boko Haram especially under the state of emergency. Yet, how warranted or indeed constitutional is the stipulation of 20 years jail for any journalist who may incur government's wrath for allegedly supporting Boko Haram? What is the definition of "support" for Boko Haram?

How can exercise of inalienable right guaranteed by the constitution be deemed to be "support" for Boko Haram? No matter the situation, Nigerian constitution remains supreme, more so when the relevant provisions are not suspended under the prevailing emergency rule.

What was the background to the drastic regulations against the media? Within a fortnight of the military operations against Boko Haram, the army reported its success story to the effect that the insurgents had been uprooted and were in total disarray, escaping beyond the borders into Mali, Chad and Niger Republic.

Boko Haram countered in visuals released to world media and displayed on the internet with their leader Shekau claiming that Boko Haram inflicted heavy casualties on their enemy combatants who, he claimed, abandoned their positions with their weapons behind.

The army also countered that trained dogs were now being unleashed to attack Boko Haram, which was a relief because it is better for dogs to die instead of soldiers in action fighting Boko Haram. Expectedly, Nigeria media variously reported both sides. The result was the cleverly-veiled complete blackout of the press from performing its duties.

The clampdown on the media was contained in one of the provisions in the proscription order on Boko Haram. Unfortunately for Jonathan, the specific provisions in the Boko Haram proscription order against the press are completely null and void when placed against Nigerian constitution.

By the way, lest the impression of raising false alarm be created, Nigerians, especially media owners, journalists, particularly editors, news editors, features editors in print media as well as chief executives, news producers and current affairs producers/presenters in electronic media, should read relevant sections of the Boko Haram Proscription Order silencing the press.

Announcing the Proscription Order on Boko Haram and Ansaru, Jonathan warned the general public that "... any person participating in any form of activities involving or concerning the collective intentions of the said groups (Boko Haram) and Ansaru will be violating the provisions of the Terrorism Act." Jonathan went on: "Accordingly, Section 5 (1) of the Act prescribes a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years for any person, who directly or indirectly solicits or renders support for the commission of an act of terrorism or to a terrorist group."

Jonathan then warned that: "For the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 5 (Quoted above), "support" (that is for Boko Haram and Ansaru) includes (a) incitement to commit a terrorist act through the internet or any electronic means or through the USE OF PRINTED MATERIALS OR THROUGH THE DISSEMINATION OF TERRORIST INFORMATION..." etc

That is the danger for Nigerian press, a booby-trap for journalists. What is that support for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be punishable with 20 years imprisonment? Release from Boko Haram published all over the world? Legitimate curiosity for Boko Haram's side of the story even if criminal? Which and where is that home in Nigeria without access to satellite television or radio transmitting latest news on Boko Haram and Ansaru? BBC, Sky News, CNN, Aljazeera, NBC news, Voice of Germany, Radio France, Voice of America, Hausa/English Services of the various stations? Even in Nigeria henceforth, radio or television discussion programmes especially with listeners' participation will attract 20 years jail term for those involved.

That is dissemination of information on Boko Haram. Are the producers and presenters on Nigerian Radio Info listening? Jonathan even does not need to bother himself as the Abuja-based electronic media regulating body NBC, will help him by unilaterally closing down radio and television stations in violation of Nigerian constitution.

Come to think of it. For over ten years, even after the death of chief terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, his terrorist group Al Qaeda, posed and still poses greater danger (than Boko Haram and Ansaru combined) to the United States, Britain and Europe. Yet, the media in those counties till today still report the activities of the terrorist group in print and electronic media without any government clampdown in all the countries concerned mainly because of their people's right to information under their respective constitution.

Britain, United States and European countries all have their Terrorism Act fully operated without victimizing journalists as dangerous elements.

Again, what constitutes support for Boko Haram and Ansaru? Independent media reports of the activities of the insurgents? Well, there is this bad news for Goodluck Jonathan. The moment he commenced military operations against Boko Haram and Ansaru, not only did he have the support of every worried observer but he should have been aware that his administration would be held accountable by the media for the conduct and duration of the military operations.

Jonathan should pick his copy of Nigerian constitution and demand from his Attorney-General, Mohammed Adoke, the import of Section 22 of Nigeria constitution which states clearly that "The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media, shall AT ALL TIMES BE FREE to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people."

That is the duty conferred on Nigerian press by Chapter Two of Nigerian constitution under Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Does Jonathan with the threat of 20 years jail for journalists disseminating information realize that he is violating the rights and responsibilities of the press? Who is that judge of distinction and diligence, in the absence of suspension of this Section of the constitution, who will pronounce any journalist guilty for discharging his constitutional obligation?

There is also the wrong assumption that only those in government are well-meaning and patriotic while others are deemed subversive. Despite the emergency regulations, the same Nigerian constitution asserts the right of ordinary citizens to have access to, and impart ideas and information.

Conduct as well as progress of military operations even under emergency regulations is a legitimate information to which every Nigerian is not only entitled but also has the right to impart to others. Why should such a constitutional right be deemed support for Boko Haram and Ansaru to warrant 20 years imprisonment for the reporter or editor or any Nigerian for that matter?

Among the fundamental human rights guaranteed every citizen under Chapter Four of the Nigerian Constitution is Section 39 (1), which states clearly that "Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information WITHOUT INTERFERENCE." Why, therefore, despite this right, should the beneficiary be endangered with a punishment of 20 years imprisonment? Currently, an American soldier is being tried for the murder of 16 Afghans.

Despite the terrorism in Afghanistan, American media freely reported the criminal misconduct of their military without being deemed supporter of terrorism. Are the Talibans in Afghanistan any less terrorist than Boko Haram? If reporting the intention of Boko Haram should now be regarded as support for terrorism and therefore punishable with 20 years in jail, why should it be legitimate to report the intention of MEND to resume their bombing activities? What is support for Boko Haram?

The massacre at Baga, Borno State by Nigerian Army and condemned by United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon? To report such crime against humanity today or even the condemnation by the United Nations Secretary-General will be deemed as disseminating information on a terrorist group, to be punishable with a jail sentence for 20 years. Responsible world leaders like ex-American President, Bill Clinton and current US Secretary of State, John Kerry, on different occasions called for tackling social and economic problems in addition to military operations against Boko Haram.

Henceforth, under the proscription order, publishing such opinion especially if expressed by fellow Nigerians will be deemed disseminating support for Boko Haram. Any print medium editorial critical of aspects of the military operation will be deemed as support for Boko Haram.

The question now is "What will Jonathan not regard as support for Boko Haram?" Jonathan must come out clearly with his definition. Otherwise, any critical comments by the likes of ACN's national publicity secretary, Lai Mohammed, on aspects of the military operations will be misconstrued as support for terrorist groups. Jonathan's idea of support for Boko Haram is indefinite and open-ended.

Media have been rendered zombie with the only worth of disseminating self-glorifying and largely exaggerated releases by the army. Never in the history of this country and never during the civil war were the media so incapacitated. Despite the spate of national emergency during the civil war, reports of Biafran invasion of the defunct Mid-West were freely reported by the media.

Advances of the Biafran forces to Ore in Ondo State were similarly reported without any hindrance. Today, such reports on Boko Haram's advance to even Wuse in Abuja will constitute support for Boko Haram. On the other hand, media reports of Biafran invasion of Mid-West and advances to Ore alerted and gingered the Federal side to realize the risk of possible defeat. Other countries had faced violent protest groups for years and even decades.

France, for example, coped with the ETA separatist group engaged in bombings like the Boko Haram. Spain, after more than 30 years, is still battling its own separatist violent group, the BASQUES. Britain commenced military operation against the Irish Republican Army terrorists (IRA) in 1968 and till now, the only relief is fragile peace.

Never did any of these countries ever consider media reports and or comments on the activities of the violent groups support for them. Media carried statements of intentions and no journalist ever faced prison term for performing their duties.

It can only be hoped the stage will never be reached for any journalist, well guaranteed by the constitution to disseminate and access information, will be arraigned. Should such arise, it should be a legal battle with every effort.

Via: Sun News Online