It is rare to find a Nigerian state governor who counsels his colleagues to respect media freedom because journalists do their job in the public interest. That was precisely what Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu did last Thursday when he addressed participants at a workshop coordinated by the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) under the central theme “Journalists and digitalisation: The imperative of good corporate governance”.
Sanwo-Olu’s advocacy for media freedom in Nigeria should be recognised and appreciated. He said there was value in safeguarding media freedom. Sanwo-Olu said: “I stand with you (media) in solidarity to say that, indeed, your profession is not just a noble one but it’s the one that gives the general public an independent assessment, holding our governance and government accountable at all times. And so we need to be very careful as politicians and public officers that we do not gag this profession (media) and do not unduly stifle free press”.
He continued: “Our government understands and appreciates that press freedom is the way in which we can hold government accountable. But it is also the responsibility of all of us here to ensure that we understand the thin line; and also self-regulate our activities.”
Sanwo-Olu’s position on press freedom is unassailable. Freedom of Nigerian journalists to report news and information is important because a free press fosters accountability, openness, and transparency, all of which are important ingredients for the growth and development of democracy and a free society.
Although press freedom is regarded as important in many countries, journalists continue to struggle to report freely. Bosch (2011) notes that, in many African countries, there are existing legislations on official secrecy, defamation, libel, insult to the President, and other laws that restrict the rights of journalists to freely access and distribute information. Thus, media freedom is in jeopardy in diverse countries.
In 2019, Freedom House, an international and “independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world”, reported that: “The ability of journalists to report freely on matters of public interest is a crucial indicator of democracy”.
We need strong democracies in a world in which some political leaders display authoritarian tendencies.
Compare Sanwo-Olu’s perceptions of press freedom to views held by the Kaduna State government in 2016. For articulating his views on social media, Dr. John Danfulani, a former lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the Kaduna State University (KASU), was detained and put on trial because he expressed views the state government did not like. The story was published in the Vanguard on Friday, October 28, 2016.
Danfulani’s unpardonable crime was that he posted on Facebook comments the state government estimated to be offensive and perfidious. For these reasons, the government took it upon itself to act as an agenda-setter and a gatekeeper of public opinion. Danfulani was hurled before a court but he remained perplexed about how he might have breached the state’s laws.
The case of Danfulani raised critical questions about the relationship between citizens and the state. One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is that citizens are denied the right to freely express themselves. In a country that celebrated the return of democracy in May 1999, this kind of excessive use of force by a Nigerian state should not be tolerated. Every democratic country is expected to respect and acknowledge that it is guided by the principles of democracy.
It is unacceptable that an elected state government should muzzle the right of citizens to free speech, their right to know, and their right to discuss issues relating to governance. The freedom of citizens and indeed the press to express their views on matters of public interest must remain inalienable.
A government that frets about what citizens are discussing in the public sphere must be an idle government. A government that is focused and result-oriented must be driven by a clear set of objectives and clear timelines for achieving those objectives. That government is not usually side-tracked by, or worried about, the theme or targets of conversations in the public domain.
In Nigeria, respect for media freedom has been an ongoing battle between political and military leaders and journalists. In such an environment that breeds dictatorship, state officials deploy a range of backhanded strategies to silence journalists and their media organisations. During the 1980s and 1990s, for example, various strategies and laws were adopted by Nigerian military dictators to limit media freedom and freedom of expression. One good example was the notorious Decree 4 of 1984 that was designed to protect military officers and public officials from media scrutiny.
Given that accountability and transparency are rare features of military and civilian governments in Nigeria, the media and civil society have an obligation to hold national leaders to account. Hindering media freedom or blocking official sources of news and information is a sure way to cultivate rumour. Harassing journalists and citizens, and censoring news disseminated in the public sphere are not what governments are elected to do.
Democracy is enhanced and strengthened when journalists are allowed to operate freely in a society. Conversely, democracy is imperilled when journalists are constrained from reporting news, presenting critical reports, and barred from contributing to deliberative democracy.
A society in which journalists’ freedom is restrained is a passive society. That environment jeopardises democracy. An uncritical media enhances the political, economic, social, and educational underdevelopment of a society.
It is not only journalists who have professional responsibility to question national leaders. The right to free expression is a right that is guaranteed to everyone. That right is guaranteed in the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression – and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers”.
The 19th century utilitarian philosopher, John Stuart Mill, a libertarian, campaigned energetically for free speech during his lifetime. He argued impressively that, if a society smothered an opinion, it could also suppress the truth. An incorrect opinion, he disputed, could exhibit traces of truth that would be vitally important for discovering the whole truth. Mill supported an “open marketplace of ideas” because he sensed it was the right forum where the “weak and the strong”, men and women, “minorities and majorities” would express themselves freely in their search for the truth.
The overriding aim of all constraints placed on media freedom is to hinder the publication or broadcast of material that state officials consider inappropriate or too sensitive for public consumption.
When the press and the people express critical opinions about failure of governance, they do so in the hope that those criticisms would equip political leaders with clear ideas about how the country is travelling. Press criticisms facilitate informed government actions or policies on how to provide for citizens’ welfare and wellbeing. Criticisms should never be seen as a pollutant. Most times, they are constructive expressions of views that should help state officials to govern in the best interests of society.
In democratic and undemocratic countries, journalists and citizens are regarded as the drivers of social and political change. True democracy guarantees everyone the freedom to express their views. Opinions might differ and opinions might be critical or favourable to state officials. The main point in scrutinising government officials is to ensure good governance and that leaders are persuaded to roll out the right policies and programmes for the good of society.