Yar’Adua: Two decisions, different effects 

By Levi Obijiofor 

Friday, 14 November 2008 

President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua took two decisions this week that should impress his supporters and daze his critics. Incidentally, both decisions were driven by provocative actions that affected Yar’Adua directly and indirectly.  

Outraged by the bestial and brutal treatment of a young woman – Uzoma Okere -- by naval ratings (let’s call them naval rookies because that’s what they demonstrated by their appalling action) in Victoria Island last week, Yar’Adua requested his Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Paul Dike, to investigate the incident.  

But just as Yar’Adua was trying to recover from the anger that had swelled up to his nostrils by the sheer brutalisation of an unarmed woman, a report published in the Leadership newspaper which raised serious questions about Yar’Adua’s health triggered another bout of presidential exasperation.  

It is embarrassing enough for a president to be confronted with regular rumours of his health which he has laboured to explain repeatedly to a sceptical public. But when a newspaper published a dubious report about the president’s health and backed it up by claiming that the president failed to show up at certain public events which he was scheduled to attend, the president’s patience snapped. He has requested his lawyers to commence legal action again the Leadership newspaper. We’ll return shortly to this report. But first, let us examine Yar’Adua’s decision to inquire into the bashing of Uzoma Okere.  

Yar’Adua’s decision to order an investigation into the rough treatment of Uzoma Okere struck the right chord in the public. As I argued last week, the president has a duty of care to investigate the inhuman treatment of Uzoma so that he can understand what happened, why it happened and the right course of action to take. The president had to act for a number of reasons: the bashing of Uzoma was in bad taste; it sent a wrong message about the limitless powers of men in uniform; and the incident took place in the public domain.  

Uzoma’s treatment received national and international attention because it was disgustingly high-handed. It was recorded on video and distributed worldwide. The image of Nigeria was on trial, including the way men treated vulnerable women in our society. In this digital age, abuses of human rights which are documented and circulated electronically tend to attract immediate national and international outrage. Photographic images serve as eyewitness accounts of news events. And so did the video account of Uzoma’s ordeal.  

The naval rookies who brutalised Uzoma, as well as their boss who failed to stop the bashing, must be sweating about how to defend their action. Without prejudging the outcome of the official investigation, no one who saw the video would claim that the incident was a fictional account of what happened. 

The moral character test for the naval personnel involved in that dishonourable incident is to adduce acceptable reasons to justify why they had to clobber a defenceless woman so badly and still strip her naked in public. Stripping Uzoma naked was the ultimate humiliation and abuse. There are more decent ways to restrain an angry woman than stripping her naked.  

No man would ever wish to see his wife or daughter or sister humiliated in the manner that Uzoma was treated last week, regardless of the degree of provocation – if any.  

Yar’Adua and the Navy hierarchy must take appropriate action to underline the point that wearing the navy uniform is not a licence to torture or kill any member of the public. As Uzoma’s father, a retired army colonel, told the Punch in an interview published three days ago: “I wore the uniform for so many years; and I don’t think I went out of my way to humiliate anybody. The mere fact that you are in uniform should make you humble because you are one out of so many.” 

It is in this context that we must commend the ban placed by Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola on use of sirens by governors and government officials moving about in Lagos. For once, we should be free to move about in Lagos without fear of sirens. The ban should be extended to other parts of the country. Surely, what is good for Lagos residents must be good for people in other states.  

Sirens constitute public nuisance in Nigeria. Their indiscriminate use should be outlawed. For years, sirens were used as symbols of authority to oppress and harass ordinary road users. This was a common practice during military rule. Uzoma’s experience at the hands of the naval rookies last week represents a sad throwback to the culture of intimidation that was practised and sustained during military rule.  

In more organised societies, sirens are used in restricted circumstances and for specially approved purposes such as when ambulances are dashing to or from an emergency call or when the police are chasing law breakers. I have seen governors and premiers in foreign countries attend public functions without the blare of sirens. 

Now, back to Yar’Adua’s decision to sue a newspaper over the report on his health. What did the Leadership newspaper say last weekend about Yar’Adua’s health? According to The Guardian of last Sunday, the Leadership newspaper claimed in its Saturday edition that: “Yar’Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days... His deteriorating health prevented him from attending yesterday’s (last Friday’s) Jumma’at prayer at the National Mosque. Earlier, he had also failed to show up at Sheraton Hotel, where he was billed to attend a function along with the visiting German president. No excuse was advanced for the president’s absence on both occasions.” 

Yar’Adua and his aides were rankled by that report particularly when Yar’Adua knew he attended the events but the newspaper report claimed he didn’t. He had photos and credible evidence to show that he was present at those public events. On the basis of perceived inaccuracies in the newspaper report, Yar’Adua directed his lawyers to sue the Leadership newspaper. 

Presidential adviser on media and publicity Olusegun Adeniyi was left to defend his boss by picking out the flaws in the report. Hear him: “There is no truth in the entire report and the lies on which it hangs are so easy to disprove that the only reasonable conclusion is that the publishers of the newspapers ran the report in furtherance of their reprehensible efforts to embarrass the President and destabilize his Administration… If it had any regard for the truth at all and made the least effort to confirm the veracity of the assertions in its report, Leadership newspaper would know that the claim that Yar’Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days is a big lie.” 

The tone of Adeniyi’s rebuttal pointed to the seriousness with which the Presidency viewed the newspaper report.  

There are a few comments to be made about the aptness or inappropriateness of a president taking a newspaper to court over a report on the president’s health. First, by taking the newspaper to court rather than arrest or detain the journalists or send troops to the newspaper premises, Yar’Adua has chosen to put into practice his rule of law creed. That is an acceptable way to proceed. His legal action is a signal he won’t tolerate any more speculative or false news story concerning his health.  

Second, Yar’Adua’s decision to go to court suggests that he would devote greater time to vetting daily press reports about his health rather than concentrate on the job of governing the nation. The key challenge is: would the president and all his assistants have all the time to comb every paragraph of every newspaper report in search of potential defamatory material? Obviously Yar’Adua is acting on the basis that a lie published in the media which goes unchallenged is likely to be accepted by the public as truth. But if Yar’Adua is prepared to take legal action in order to correct every inaccuracy in the press, he must also be prepared to lodge countless legal actions every week. 

Third, and perhaps more significant, Yar’Adua’s reaction to media reports about his health highlights a greater need for the Nigerian press to show greater responsibility. The right to publish does not include the right to defame or injure the character of anybody. Press freedom carries with it parallel obligations and responsibilities. The social responsibility of the press was outlined as far back as the mid-20^th century when Theodore Peterson wrote: “Freedom carries concomitant obligations; and the press, which enjoys a privileged position under our government, is obliged to be responsible to society for carrying out certain essential functions of mass communication in contemporary society.”

Robot  # 1 | 14.11.2008 09:09

Yar’Adua: Two decisions, different effects By Levi Obijiofor Friday, 14 November 2008 President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua took two decisions this week that should impress his supporters and daze his critics. Incidentally, both decisions were driven by provocative actions that affected Yar’Adua directly and indirectly. Outraged by the bestial and brutal treatment of a young woman – Uzoma Okere -- by naval ratings (let’s call them naval rookies because that’s what they demonstrated by their appalling action) in Victoria Island last week, Yar’Adua requested his Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Paul Dike, to investigate the incident. But just as Yar’Adua was trying to recover from the anger that had swelled up to his nostrils by the sheer brutalisation of an unarmed woman, a report published in the Leadership newsp...Read the full article.

MrOneNaija  # 2 | 14.11.2008 11:35

ACCOLADES FOR YAR'ADUA? While it is proper for anyone to castigate perceived errors by Leadership (and any other outfit) in its coverage of the president, that should not in any way be deemed as carte blanche to present a skewed analysis as is apparently the case in the above commentary by Mr. Obijiofor of The Guardian (Lagos). It is amazing that the writer has elected to come down hard on the Abuja newspaper even as he seems contented with essentially playing down the moral inconsistencies and contradictions that the reported Yar'Adua decision to sue Leadership has thrown up. In the first place, there is this critical issue of the president's immunity. It is morally wrong, in fact, it smacks of a brazen paucity of leadership on the part of Yar'Adua for him to hide behind the cover of his immunity to intimidate the local press. If you cannot be sued, you don't sue! It is as simple as that. And, by the way, what is Segun Adeniyi doing as image launderer for Presidente Yar'Adua? Why didn't he put out a rectifier? Case closed? Elsewhere on nigeriavillagesquare.com, I did draw the reader's attention to the harassment Channels TV had been subjected to recently by agents of the Yar'Adua regime. Channels was unlawfully closed by the Yar'Adua government. The losses incured by the station were no doubt incalculable. Yar'Adua was not (and could conceivably not be) sued on account of his criminal infringement of the rights of those operating Channels. This same individual has the guts to sue claiming libel? Where is the leadership? One would have expected also that the columnist of The Guardian would have the alertness to challenge the spurious claim by Yar'Adua and his acolytes that the offending report by the Abuja newspaper did amount to an attempt to destabilize the current administration at Aso Rock. That he ignored that crucial element speaks volumes. It is not enough to point out the social responsibility of the media in its coverage of events. In the tenuous landscape of Nigeria's PDP-dominated politics, successive tyrannies have, in a knee-jerk fashion, resorted to egregious propaganda via the red herring of an imaginary destabilization plot by perceived enemies whenever they have been confronted with their failures. This is precisely what Yar'Adua and his henchmen are doing in this matter of Leadership's apparent slip. Democracy is perilously challenged when those who should know better refuse to take to task dangerous claims that are peddled through an increasingly paronoid official discourse which is more often than not a prelude to a tyrannical crackdown on dissent. There are a few comments to be made about the aptness or inappropriateness of a president taking a newspaper to court over a report on the president’s health. First, by taking the newspaper to court rather than arrest or detain the journalists or send troops to the newspaper premises, Yar’Adua has chosen to put into practice his rule of law creed. That is an acceptable way to proceed. His legal action is a signal he won’t tolerate any more speculative or false news story concerning his health. Second, Yar’Adua’s decision to go to court suggests that he would devote greater time to vetting daily press reports about his health rather than concentrate on the job of governing the nation. The key challenge is: would the president and all his assistants have all the time to comb every paragraph of every newspaper report in search of potential defamatory material? Obviously Yar’Adua is acting on the basis that a lie published in the media which goes unchallenged is likely to be accepted by the public as truth. But if Yar’Adua is prepared to take legal action in order to correct every inaccuracy in the press, he must also be prepared to lodge countless legal actions every week. Third, and perhaps more significant, Yar’Adua’s reaction to media reports about his health highlights a greater need for the Nigerian press to show greater responsibility. The right to publish does not include the right to defame or injure the character of anybody. Press freedom carries with it parallel obligations and responsibilities. The social responsibility of the press was outlined as far back as the mid-20th century when Theodore Peterson wrote: “Freedom carries concomitant obligations; and the press, which enjoys a privileged position under our government, is obliged to be responsible to society for carrying out certain essential functions of mass communication in contemporary society.”

Levi Obijiofor  # 3 | 14.11.2008 13:45

You wrote: "If you cannot be sued, you don't sue! It is as simple as that." Oh, really? You seem to mix things up. I would recommend you do a quick check of your law books and reference material, including historical facts. While you are busy leafing through your books, are you aware that there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible journalism? Are you also aware that freedom is not absolute anywhere in the world? I insist that freedom goes with responsibility. I am often puzzled by the inconsistencies in the sanctimonious positions you adopt in your articles. In one moment, you criticise Yar'Adua's government for abuse of human rights, for not taking legal action against offending media organisations. In another moment, you criticise Yar'Adua for taking a newspaper to court for publication of false information. It's a Catch-22 situation for Yar'Adua. If you feel I came down hard on Leadership newspaper and played down the inconsistencies in Yar'Adua's decision to sue the newspaper, I would recommend again that you revisit and digest the last three paragraphs of my article which you selectively reproduced to serve your argument. If you still cannot identify some satirical comments in those paragraphs, you need read no further. If you have been reading my articles since Yar'Adua became president, including last week's article, you would have known that I am one of the harshest critics of Yar'Adua and his government. You asked: "... what is Segun Adeniyi doing as image launderer for Presidente Yar'Adua? Why didn't he put out a rectifier? Case closed?" Your questions just confirm that you really didn’t read my article in full. See paragraphs 16 and 17 of that article. I don't represent Segun Adeniyi but you should know that his "rectifier" was published in various newspapers last week.

MrOneNaija  # 4 | 14.11.2008 15:30

OF MORAL PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP AND THE WATCHDOG ROLE OF THE MEDIA =Levi Obijiofor;289941>You wrote: Oh, really? You seem to mix things up. I would recommend you do a quick check of your law books and reference material, including historical facts. While you are busy leafing through your books, are you aware that there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible journalism? Are you also aware that freedom is not absolute anywhere in the world? I insist that freedom goes with responsibility. I am often puzzled by the inconsistencies in the sanctimonious positions you adopt in your articles. In one moment, you criticise Yar'Adua's government for abuse of human rights, for not taking legal action against offending media organisations. In another moment, you criticise Yar'Adua for taking a newspaper to court for publication of false information. It's a Catch-22 situation for Yar'Adua. If you feel I came down hard on Leadership newspaper and played down the inconsistencies in Yar'Adua's decision to sue the newspaper, I would recommend again that you revisit and digest the last three paragraphs of my article which you selectively reproduced to serve your argument. If you still cannot identify some satirical comments in those paragraphs, you need read no further. If you have been reading my articles since Yar'Adua became president, including last week's article, you would have known that I am one of the harshest critics of Yar'Adua and his government. You asked: Your questions just confirm that you really didn’t read my article in full. See paragraphs 16 and 17 of that article. I don't represent Segun Adeniyi but you should know that his "rectifier" was published in various newspapers last week. Mr. Obijiofor, I did, from the outset, a discreet reading of your article. You, on the other hand, have apparently chosen to selectively, if hastily react to my post. Your injunction that I read what the law says on an incumbent president's right to sue is indeed superfluous. Please do a re-reading of my earlier comments in that regard. I did mention that it smacks of " a brazen paucity of leadership" for Yar'Adua to be threatening to sue those who may not sue him on account of his presidential immunity. I did add, tongue-in-cheek, that, instead of threatening to go to court, Yar'Adua's sidekicks should simply have put out a statement correcting the Leadership report they were contesting. "Case closed", I emphasized. Threatening to go to court was foolish on the part of the president and his éminence grise. Suing Leadership is a gauche manner for the president to practise his "due process and the rule of law" mantra. I confer neither nobility nor the cachet of moral or visionary example on the Yar'Adua faux pas. The other needless passage in your reaction has to do with your reiteration of journalistic responsibility (or the lack of it) as evidenced in the offending Leadership report. In the incipit of my first post here, I clearly stated that denouncing such misconduct is indeed the proper thing to do. That said, let me hasten to add that inherent in the responsibilties of journalists and the media in general is the watchdog role to not ignore critical elements in the conduct of those in positions of authority, legitimate or not. In your commentary, you were quick to point out the transgressions of the Abuja newspaper. At the same time, for some yet to be explained reason, an otherwise lucid commentator like yourself failed to draw the attention of your readers to a particularly troubling element in the Yar'Adua regime's stand regarding the report by Leadership. Of course, I'm referring here to the worrying official discourse which has sought to equate a press report with political partisanship bordering on an attempt to destabilize the Yar'Adua government, and probably, by implication, the nation. This omission, deliberate or not, is what you cannot run away from. Please, hear the Yar'Adua spokesperson: “...There is no truth in the entire report and the lies on which it hangs are so easy to disprove that the only reasonable conclusion is that the publishers of the newspapers ran the report in furtherance of their reprehensible efforts to embarrass the President and destabilize his Administration...

MrOneNaija  # 5 | 15.11.2008 21:18

CHAIRMAN/EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF LEADERSHIP ARRESTED! Apparently taking their cue from the dangerous claim by the president's chief spokesperson which sought to equate a newspaper report with an imaginary attempt on the part of the management of the media outfit in question to "destabilize" the Yar'Adua administration, agents of the current Aso Rock potentate have today arrested and are holding both the chairman/editor-in-chief and the editor of the Abuja daily called Leadership. Readers will remember that in my very first post here, I did warn that quite often, when faced with their failures, successive Nigerian tyrants have resorted to the red herring of national security or destabilization as a prelude to a clampdown on dissent. It is indeed instructive that barely a day after this reminder, Yar'Adua's gorillas are seen to be engaging in this terrible abuse of human rights directed against the owners of a local media organization. The increasingly sinister twist this whole matter has taken should once more expose the hypocrisy as well as the lack of moral leadership plaguing the Yar'Adua regime. So, what has Yar'Adua done with his curious threat to sue Leadership for libel? Significantly, I did mention also that the threat to sue is tantamount to a clumsy attempt on the part of the president to harass and intimidate a segment of the national press. LEADERSHIP Chairman, Editor Held November 15th, 2008 The chairman/editor-in-chief of the LEADERSHIP Newspapers Group, Mr Sam Nda-Isaiah, and the editor of this paper, Ms Lara Olugbemi, were yesterday invited for questioning and then held incommunicado by officials of the State Security Service (SSS) in Abuja. Up until press time, they had not been released. While Ms Olugbemi was detained from 11.30am, Mr Nda-Isaiah was held from 4.05pm. He had driven straight from the airport to the Aso Drive office of the SSS on arrival from Lagos where he had attended a meeting of the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria. Six staff members of the LEADERSHIP Group have been interrogated by the police and the SSS over this paper's lead story of last week on the health of the president. The management of the LEADERSHIP Group has apologised for the factual errors contained in the story authored by former news editor Simon Imobo-Tswam. But the police and the SSS, it seems, have been probing into the source of the true portions. An unwritten code among journalists forbids disclosure of sources. It is not yet known what interests of justice the security agents are protecting.