Media Capture and the erosion of press freedom in Nigeria
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in crises of legitimacy in many countries, as governments continue to struggle to meet up with the daily expectations of citizens. Trust deficit is on the rise and this has resulted in many governments resorting to authoritarian strategies to shore up their legitimacy in a world daily inundated with uncertainties, fears and discontent from citizens.
The curtailment of democratic rights and freedom has become the best bet for most governments and this is implemented through different guise. Media capture is one of the most popular strategies developed by many leaders during this period. According to Maha Rafi Atal, “Media capture has been historically manifest in four forms - plutocratic, state, corporate and intersecting - but the intersecting form of media capture is likely to be dominant in countries where independent media institutions are still consolidating in the context of the shift to digital forms of communication.”
Nigerian government has resorted to media capture as a way of managing the multiple crises of legitimacy, trust, insecurity and other existential threats such as secessionist agitations around the country. The objective of this strategy is to insulate the government of the day from criticism and present an alternate reality to citizens with a view to restoring the legitimacy of the government over time and protecting the regime from the political threats.
Media capture anywhere around the world is not a sudden occurrence; it is a gradual process that begins with the introduction of government policies under the guise of protecting national interest and maintaining the sovereignty of the state. This has been the tone of state actors in Nigeria in recent times.
In June, when the federal government placed an indefinite ban on Twitter, the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, justified government’s action on the grounds of national security.
The Minister said : “The only reason why we suspended the operation of Twitter was that it was promoting disunity in Nigeria and therefore became a national security risk.
“The federal government deemed it necessary that the activities of Twitter in Nigeria, in particular, is inimical to stability in the country. Mr Mohammed also accused Twitter and its founder as being responsible for the destruction of lives and properties that occurred during the ENDSARS protest.
He stated that “during the unfortunate EndSARS protest, the same Twitter played a very unsavoury role by making available its platform to retweet the messages of the EndSARS protesters and also raised funds for the EndSARS protesters before it was hijacked by hoodlums.”
As a further push for media capture in the country, the Nigerian government recently warned broadcast stations to desist from providing details of security happenings in the country. The National Broadcast Corporation (NBC), in a memo to broadcast operators, cautioned broadcast platforms from giving “too many details’ during their newspaper review segment of their programmes.
The agency in the letter, “enjoins broadcasters to collaborate with the government in dealing with the security challenges by not giving details of either the security issues or victims of these security challenges so as not to jeopardise the efforts of the Nigerian soldiers and other security agents.”
By implication, the government is calling for a media blackout on security issues with a view of depriving citizens from reality. It aspires to monopolise truth and fact as well as win the hearts and minds of citizens through alternate facts and distorted reality.
This directive is a campaign against truth, the right to know and a plot to censor dissenting voices on national issues. Adherence to this new directive by broadcast stations will amount to the triumph of propaganda against fact. What the government intends to achieve with this order is to ensure that the government becomes the custodian and sole source of truth and facts; in that case any information contrary to its information will amount to fake news. This underscores why the government has made many attempts to introduce legislations that will criminalise fake news, hate speech and censor the Nigerian media.
In 2019, the Nigerian Senate proposed the National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech bill, and the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation and other Related Offences bill. The bills give authorities arbitrary powers to shut down the internet and limit access to social media, and make criticising the government punishable with penalties of up to three years in prison.
Also before the National Assembly are two contentious bills ( ‘An Act to amend the Nigerian Press Council Act 1992,’ and the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission Amendment Bill). These bills if passed into law will erode media freedom in Nigeria and shrink the civic space as the government puts itself in a position to license who to practise as journalists. This, media stakeholders have vehemently criticised. They argue that the proposed legislations will criminalise journalism in Nigeria when passed into law.
Fundamental human rights are the cornerstone of democracy and media pluralism is at the heart of democratic sustenance. For democracy to flourish, the media must be free from every entanglement of state capture and manipulation; this way it can be alive to its responsibility of promoting peace, accountability and development.
Ominabo is the Communications Officer, Goodluck Jonathan Foundation.