Journalists and Obasanjo's contempt
By Reuben Abati

"I don't read Nigerian newspapers. When people ask me, 'Have you read the papers today?' I say, for what?'. The people often say, 'They are abusing you'. But I say back to them. 'It is better to be abused than to be crucified...Not many people are recognised for whatever they rendered in their lifetime...These media people, you know, they will never leave me alone because anybody who wants to sell his paper must write something about Obasanjo. The only thing I will now do is to tell my lawyer to see if I can charge them and take commission anytime they use Obasanjo's name in their papers. I will just ask for a 10 per cent commission" - former President Olusegun Obasanjo, in Abeokuta, August 19, 2007.

OBASANJO'S attack on the press in the foregoing statements was more or less his own way of saying: "Shame on you, journalists. At least some people recognise my worth if you charlattans do not." The occasion was the Ogun State Awards Night where Obasanjo was given a "Lifetime Achievement Award." President Obasanjo has never hidden his contempt for journalists. Shortly after his exit from office in 1979, he had pasted a notice on the entrance to his Ota Farm "Dogs and Journalists Not Allowed." Placing us in the same category as dogs was not meant to be a compliment but a dismissal of journalists as nosey intruders. But at no other time did President Obasanjo display his contempt for journalists more expansively than during his eight-year reign as Nigeria's civilian President, 1999-2007. Upon his assumption of office in 1999, his government had repealed some of the draconian anti-press laws enacted during the military era, and the media had jubilated, describing this as consistent with the temper of democratic rule.

It was not long however, before the ambivalent attitude of the Obasanjo government towards the press became apparent. Whereas the government struggled to restrain itself from direct attacks on press freedom, it never hid the fact that it was merely tolerating the media which insisted, during the period, on performing its role as watchdog. At a personal level, President Obasanjo waged a verbal war against journalists whenever he had the opportunity to do so. His "The President Speaks" - a programme on radio and television, provided him a platform to embarrass individual journalists in public. He once told a senior editor to "shut up". He accused another of "writing nonsense". He bullied. He castigated. He ridiculed journalists who dared to ask him tough questions. On more than two memorable occasions, he delivered speeches in which he singled out the media for special flagellation. Abusing journalists was a favourite sport for him.

But in Abeokuta, on Sunday, President Obasanjo gave us not just his view about journalists, but an insight into how he ran Nigeria and perhaps why he made so many mistakes. Whenever he attacked journalists, as President, anyone would think he was speaking out of a position of knowledge. But now the man has told us: "I don't read Nigerian newspapers." His knowledge of the Nigerian press is based on mere hearsay (when people ask me), and his objection to newspapers derives simply from his fear that they abuse him. This is sad and pitiable. During the Obasanjo years, people always asked us: "Do the people in Abuja read those things you write at all?"

This question became necessary because the more we wrote and tried to set an agenda for the nation, the more impossible the people in government became. The puzzle has now fallen into place. President Obasanjo is under the illusion that the pages of newspapers are filled with Obasanjo stories. He needs to be told that there is more to a newspaper than Obasanjo. Perhaps if he had read newspapers, he would have been in a position to understand and appreciate, and possibly respond to the feelings of the people about his government. Between 1999 and 2007, Nigerian newspapers did a good job of exposing the fault lines in the governance process in Nigeria.

We wrote about the roads that had gone bad (including the road to Obasanjo's farm in Ota), poor electricity supply, the incompetence of public institutions and we offered ideas about the Nigerian question. But the President preferred to listen to hearsay, purveyed by the sycophants who surrounded him and who knew that one way to capture his attention was to tell him: "They are abusing you." Has President Obasanjo heard of Thomas Jefferson?

He was the third President of the United States. In a letter to Edward Carrington in 1787, Jefferson wrote: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence and father of the University of Virginia was an Enlightened man who lived in the Age of Enlightenment. Obasanjo is a different man. He would have preferred "a government without newspapers."

But he is not the only man of power in history who has had to treat the media with such disdain. The relationship between political figures and journalists has almost always been adversarial, central to this is a power tussle, in form of a competition for control over the public mind and imagination. In a speech delivered in June 2007, barely a month to his departure as British Prime Minister, Tony Blair had referred to journalists as "feral beasts." Long before Blair, Benjamin Disraeli (British Prime Minister, 1868, 1874-1880) had dismissed all critics as "ignorant people." Spiro Agnew, 39th US Vice President, called journalists "nattering nabobs of negativism".

The biggest challenge to press freedom in Africa is the intolerance of political figures and the erection of anti-press structures ranging from obnoxious legislation as in the example of Robert Mugabe's Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and Protection of Privacy Act in Zimbabwe, to jail terms (in Mali, Gambia) and physical attacks as in the example of Mrs. Lucy Kibaki's assault on journalists in Kenya, to denigrating verbal attacks as in Obasanjo's example. Worldwide, the problem is the same, and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) continues to document on a monthly basis the risks that journalists face in the discharge of their duties.

We face great risks in the hands of those who hate the truth, those who do not want a mirror held up to their activities, and they could be terrorists as in Iraq, dictators as in Russia, or the anti-intellectual and unenlightened class as in Nigeria. To purge President Obasanjo of his contempt, he needs to be reminded that the media is not the infuriating intruder that he considers it to be. The role of the media is one of the central pillars of democratic rule. It is so enshrined in Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution and instituted as a basic right in Section 39 thereof. Simply put, the media is the watchdog of the governance process and of society itself. Its duty is to deconstruct power and promote the common good in society in part by holding leaders accountable. By ignoring the media while in office as President, Obasanjo was knocking at the very foundations of democracy. He was violating his oath of office. It is no wonder now, in retrospect, that he refused to sign into law, the Freedom of Information Bill, which clearly was a progressive piece of legislation. It is no wonder that he did not understand the people he was supposed to be leading.

The only consolation for journalists and the newspaper industry is that in spite of the anger and contempt of leaders towards us, we always outlive them, we remain in power and in business, long after their tenure would have expired. Whether Obasanjo reads newspapers or not, does nothing to the media as an institution. But because of who he is, it is pitiable that he would promote such a love of anti-intellectualism so openly. His statement: "I don't read newspapers" is an assault on free speech and the literacy awareness campaign. The death of a reading culture in our society is a major threat to the education industry. President Obasanjo is a student of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).

I believe one of the courses in the curriculum would be General Studies. His teachers should please include "Nation Building and the Nigerian Press" as a topic for the semester. And student Obasanjo should be asked to read any four newspapers of his choice, and do a summary of the contents. Is it not ironic? This is the same man who used to preach that Nigerians should buy made-in-Nigeria goods. And now he says he does not read Nigerian newspapers. Does he read foreign newspapers? The Sun newspaper in its Wednesday, August 22 edition, p.1, and again on Thursday, August 23, p. 28, had shown Obasanjo holding a copy of the newspaper with the rider: "...But he reads The Sun." My observation: he was probably looking at the photographs!

Obasanjo says journalists won't leave him alone. Why should we? He was President of Nigeria and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and Minister of Petroleum for eight years. Public figures invariably give up a part of their privacy once they step into the public domain and assume responsibilities. The point of the media's intervention in their lives is to defend the right of the people to know: to know who their leaders are, what they do, or fail to do. The principle is volenti non fit injuria; participation in the public domain is more or less, a voluntary act of submission to the collective will, the royal "We" of the Constitution. But Obasanjo does not understand his role in the public domain from this perspective of responsibility. He says we won't leave him alone because Obasanjo stories sell our newspapers. Perhaps. But has he heard of the journalistic maxim: nothing sells like bad news? To many newspaper editors and Nigerians, Obasanjo is terrible news.

He has threatened to ask his lawyers to ask any newspaper who writes about him for a 10 per cent commission. Indeed, it is President Obasanjo who should be paying newspapers and he ought to be full of gratitude rather than contempt. He owes his pre-eminence largely to his iconisation by the media. Where would he be if newspapers never wrote about him? One of the major problems we face on this job is that the same people who appear on our pages, whose stories we write, persons who have been made important by newspapers, usually turn around to abuse journalists. They also try to teach us how to do our job. Would President Obasanjo be saying the same thing if we had all written in our newspapers that he was the best man to have ever ruled Nigeria and that he is "the father of modern Nigeria?"

To question the same institution from which he has benefited so much is cheap, pitiable and sad. I suspect that what Obasanjo wants the press to be is a lapdog to power, rather than a watchdog. I believe when newspapers and magazines praise him, he does not complain. But the media is not in the business of sycophancy. We are still here, ain't we? Where is Obasanjo today? Out of power.

Robot  # 1 | 24.08.2007 10:19

I suspect that what Obasanjo wants the press to be is a lapdog to power, rather than a watchdog. ...Read the full article.

DMA  # 2 | 24.08.2007 11:14

Military training, Certificates and Degrees has nothing to do with logic, common sense and self-development Obasanjo is an example need I say more.

Exxcuzme  # 3 | 24.08.2007 13:21

Most public figure always say they dont read Newspaper but most do. I would not blame those that would not read Naija papers since most, if not all, are Amala Newspapers, only doing the bidding of their Political owners.

Mikky jaga  # 4 | 24.08.2007 14:37

Obasanjo does not read newspapers and it shows. It shows in the way he left our infrastructures to decay. It shows in the way he increased fuel prices annually, since he never got a feedback on how that policy affects prices of goods in the market. It also shows in how he has managed to squander all the goodwill he had when he ascended to power. If his non reading of newspapers is the cause of his lack of empathy for the suffering millions of Nigerians, then ability to read newspapers must be a prerequisite for any aspirant to the presidency of Nigeria in future.

Abraxas  # 5 | 24.08.2007 17:24

Hi, folks! Please disregard the shakara, and gra-gra, the guy is educationally sub-normal, and a pseudo-intellectual to the core. Muchas gracias. Don Juan-Carlos ABRAXAS (III)

RAYNOSA  # 6 | 25.08.2007 08:17

To be honest some of you journalists derserve the kind of insult you get from these politicians because most of your reports are not objective enough, the kind of journalism practised is all about praise singing and i am very sure some of you get rewarded handsomely for this. How do you explain this when a journalist go and cover a governors 100 days in office and the said governor list a bore hole project at the cost of say N5million as part of his achivements,is it not the journalist's moral obligation to question the cost in his reporting knowing that the average cost of such project should not be more than N1million even when over estimated. In the west politicians run away from journalist because of un-necessary scandal,they act as investigators.In the last OBJ's government what has been the role of journalists in exposing some of this corrupt allegation being levied against some of these government officials.NONE. What some of them(journalist) busy themself with is to cover the some stupid pet projects by their daft wives(government officials) whose only achivement is been a firstlady or cover their senseless parties. Let me quote you"TO QUESTION THE SAME INSTITUTION FROM WHICH HE HAS BENEFITED SO MUCH IS CHEAP,PITIABLE AND SAD".How did he benefit if not for praise singing and sycophancy or did journalism as an institution provide finance for his coming to power. What OBJ & CO want is to continue your business as usual.Who says NIGERIAN MEDIA is not in the business of SYCOPHANCY,why are so many journalists these days hustling to become PA or press secretary to some of these politicians. For journalist to be respected in Nigeria they should be very objective and sincere in their reporting,though it can be dangerous,we know what happen to some good journalists DELE GIWA in Nigeria,the Turkish journalist that was murdered in Turkey and also the Russian Lady journalist. Thanks Rene.

tanibaba  # 7 | 25.08.2007 09:11

@Raynosa Thanks once again for your comments. @Dr. Abati Good prose i must admit. A well written piece. However though both Obj and Blair were Contemptuous of the press, i didnt see anywhere in the article where you established reasons why they shouldnt (i am sorry if i missed it) . If indeed OBJ was not reading newspapers did he have his own machinery for getting information about the country via his ministers, the senate, the house of representatives, state governors and state assemblies. Did the national assembly, state governors and state assemblies which were closer to the people function as they should. Did the press evaluate these bodies and their impact on our developmental efforts especially given the enormous resources available to them. I am not trying to pass the buck but i know these institutions are also vital. what did we do about them. Apart from third term and the botched constitutional amendments can we remember anything done in eight years by the last national assembly? I also wish to post my response to Sobowale's article. Let me start by making two things clear. Firstly, i am commenting on this article just as i will comment on any other subject or issue. It is not about defending OBJ as a person (i am not qualified because the man doesnt even know me) but as you will see in the article below he has become an issue. Secondly i respect your opinion and what you feel about his public statement about the press. I wonder too how he was able to gauge public opinion if he was not reading the papers. I am aware of the fact that aides usually cut out press materials for the attention of their bosses but of course they cannot force such bosses to read. Perhaps OBJ has his personal opinions of and perspectives on the practice of journalism in our country. I think he is entitled to that. And perhaps he is not fascinated by the quality of the output from our media. Only this week Mr. Odey appealed to the media to avoid sensationalism and the rest. We have also had villagers in NVS writing about our media practictioner. (i have had to write about two articles on the media too) Therefore, i want to put it to you that OBJ also has a right to his opinion about our media. However because he was our leader, how did such behaviour affect his job. That should be our focus. Even recently the immediate prime minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Tony Blair voiced his opinions about the media (it was on cnn) Also as you will see in the article below by Dr. Doyin Abiola, it was also impossible at a point in time to draw a line of distinction between his personality and his policies after going through most of the articles written about him. This is also the position of Dr. Abiola when she wrote "Rarely have the voices of dissent been raised so loud or carried so far, or trained on so many issues. It was sometimes hard to tell whether the rancour aroused by the President, even out of office, stemmed from his policies or his personality. An immensely complex, contradictory and occasionally downright obstinate man, he has never managed to attract the insulating kind of loyalty that a Babaginda, however beleaguered, could fall back on. He came, he ruled, but did he conquer? By Dr Doyin AbiolaPublished: Sunday, 19 Aug 2007 With so many problems flowing together, the nation is battered by a flood tide of frustration and anxiety. Can this nation simultaneously eradicate poverty, widen opportunity, and make its cities habitable and its laws uniformly just? Or will it remain the ‘sleeping giant’ of Africa in spite of the last eight years of civil rule? It is increasingly clear that the attainment of these hitherto elusive goals would require a large dose of patience and perseverance, two qualities that Nigerians have always found difficult to cultivate. Yet, understandably, Nigerians are battle weary after eight years of acrimonious civilian administration. And more than ever before, the nation’s discontent is focused on a former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. As such, he is the topic of general discourse and the obsession of pundits and politicians at home and abroad, of businessmen and scholars, cartoonists and ordinary citizens. Inescapably, he became, and still is, the issue. Rarely have the voices of dissent been raised so loud or carried so far, or trained on so many issues. It was sometimes hard to tell whether the rancour aroused by the President, even out of office, stemmed from his policies or his personality. An immensely complex, contradictory and occasionally downright obstinate man, he has never managed to attract the insulating kind of loyalty that a Babaginda, however beleaguered, could fall back on. Consequently, when things go wrong, he had few defenders and all too many critics. The very men who most fervently endorsed his presidency were largely those who now most passionately deplored his administration. They felt short changed for all their support of his presidency. And halfway into his administration, the President appeared to have broken finally with the founding fathers of his Party, PDP. No contemporary President has had to deal with such internal rancour, such intense and wide-ranging dissent as he did in his second term. But he, like Napoleon Bonarparte, came to power with a lot of promise reminiscence of Napoleon’s sentiments on his invasion of Egypt in 1798: “Say to my accusers that I have only come to rescue your rights from the hands of the tyrants.” Obasanjo assumed the role of the long awaited saviour. His first term, like most first terms, was relatively uneventful in comparison to the second term when he demonstrated immense political dexterity. Even his fervent critics privately admitted that they had underrated him as a political player. There was not much to record as domestic policy success stories in the first term. And as if to escape the demands of his office, he became a ‘whirlwind President’ in a dizzying travel circuit of the globe to canvass for ‘debt forgiveness’ Not many bought the reason for his travels, not even when some debts were forgiven and he seemed vindicated. As the first term unfolded and high hopes turned sour, the President was acutely aware of how much is expected of him and that in the eyes of many, he has fallen short. He was forced to admit that he had underrated some of the institutional problems, like those of NEPA, which he had thought would be done deals by the end of his first term. He engaged the legislative arm of government in a battle of wits and the leadership of both houses, especially the Senate, became a game of musical chair. Beleaguered and frustrated by few achievements, a second term became an imperative; a feat that must be achieved at all costs. And politicians, smelling the whiff of desperation in him, quickly took advantage, wielding political long knives. The gravest cut of all came from his deputy, the Vice President. The battle line was then drawn for the second term and it became increasingly deadly by the end of the term when the two topmost officers of the nation were locked in a battle of survival whereby there can only be one survivor. There were twists and turns in the battle and all political arsenals and state resources were used to fight a private war. What was clear as the fight dragged on was the awesomeness of the Presidential authority especially in the hands of an unyielding President. One of President Obasanjo’s endearing qualities to his admirers is his audacious, self assuredness streak. He assured repeatedly that he would have the final say on who would succeed him in office and insisted on a grand number of functions, some defined by the Constitution, some granted by tradition, some arrogated by him in office. He was at once head of state and leader of his party, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, leading legislator and top diplomat, educator and economist, symbol and elder statesman. Because of his role in revenue allocation to the states, he also became the ‘Chief Executive of Metropolis,’ with the authority to withhold allocations at will. He used his authority to the fullest and the insistence on it became an obstacle to his evolution as an effective and influential President rather than just a powerful one. A popular definition of influence runs thus: “To hold power is to have at your disposal blunt instruments. But without influence, power dies out at the end of its own channels of command. To have influence is to gain assent, not just obedience; to attract a following, not just an entourage; to have imitators, not just subordinates. Power gets its way (when it gets it). Influence makes its way. And in free societies it makes its way further.” Richard Lacayo, 1996. As the founder of a Leadership Forum, President Obasanjo wanted influence as much as he wanted power. He carries himself as a man of destiny for whom it is not enough to get people to do things his way. He needs them to see things his way too. But while he gained a following within a section of the private sector and the young Turks he brought into government, his message did not go down well with the larger electorate and has dismal approval rating once out of office. And not much progress has been made in overall development. But ironically, history may adjudged the former President well in spite of current disquiet about him, and his administration may be celebrated in two vital areas namely the issues of accountability in government and the engagement of the private sector in governance. It will not be the level of success in both instances that will grab the historian’s imagination but the advent of a vanguard, no matter how wobbly it was to begin with. His administration has shaken assumptions about the Nigerian Project, its villains and enforcers; those in power and those aspiring to be in power and the myriads problems to be resolved within the nation state. The former administration is an eye opener in many ways for those with discernible minds. If the Obasanjo administration has a lesson for the present administration, it is that to make progress with reforming policies, the people must be educated and persuaded no matter how self evident the reforms are. What may well be the most important power of the president is not the ‘presidential power’ but the gift of empathy, putting himself in others positions and a willingness to persuade non-believers. So as you can see the jury is still out and we should attempt to separate this "stubborn and mr. know-all" from the head of our nation who introduced certain policies that brought succour in some areas of our being and development. Yes i know the press fought for him during Abacha years and i believe he should acknowledge that if he hasnt already This is my stand on OBJ. This is my stand on OBJ and thank you . taslim