 Civil Society organizations reject the NBC order telling media organizations to stop reporting in security and we'll be examining the legal issues arising from Matawali's defection. This is Plus Politics and I am Mary Anacom. The Civil Society consortium on civic space has condemned the order by the administration of President Mohammad Abu Hari to monitor the media through the directive by the National Broadcasting Commission NBC to gag media houses, according to them. The convener of the consortium, Mbaseki Martin Obono, said the directive is a further attempt by the government to endanger the lives of citizens and prevent media organizations from reporting in security. According to him, the directive which has its legal base from Section 5 of the NBC code is inconsistent with Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution which talks about the role of media organizations and Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution which also talks about the freedom of expression and opinion. And Article 9 of the Nigerian or the African Chatter on Human and People's Rights which is a right to receive information and free expression without interference. Well joining us to discuss is Femi Diamele. He's a broadcast journalist with Nigeria Info Abuja. We have Shagu Shopita who is a, he is of the ACT Network and we are being joined by Nicholas Ibeque. He is an investigative journalist with premium times. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to start with the fact that we know that the media bill or the media regulatory bill recently which was being debated by all and Sanjay has been suspended obviously as a result of the outcry of Nigerians as to why this bill should even be an issue in the first instance. But now people are wondering, suspending the bill or kicking it out entirely why should the National Assembly be suspending it? Shouldn't it be something that we should do away with? Is there fear or a cause for concern that this bill might just find its way back on the floor of the National Assembly? I'll start with you Shagu. Mary and good evening Nigerians. I love where you started from because I think that the issue of that bill is a far more fundamental threat to press freedom, free speech freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and all of that. Simply because the bill seeks to place the practitioners in the media industry under the direct supervision of the government, of the minister of information and regardless of the personalities in government now, regardless of what we might think about them that can never be good. The media must be independent, the media must be able to see things as they see them at all times. So then suspending the bill obviously is a result of all of the pressure and all of the agitation that has happened since that bill came to the light of day. I listened to the guy, the gentleman, that moved that bill and he did say that he was stepping it down because he had heard the concerns of Nigerians and of the media industry. He was on a TV show with the president of the Nigerian Union of Journalists and it was clear that he would see this fully in some of the provisions of his bill. So if they are stepping it down, first of all, I don't even know why the bill is necessary to be honest. I think that the embassy is powerful enough as it is if not too powerful. So stepping it down, suspending it is a good thing, I think it's just junk it entirely. It's completely and utterly unnecessary and unneeded and I would advise the National Assembly that there are a lot more pressing issues for them to address their minds to and their energies to than trying to hyphen the press and trying to put the press under the control of the government. They need to spend their time on our resources. Remember that they are taking taxpayers' money to do all of these things. So they need to spend their time and our resources on things that will better for the development and the advancement of the common and the average Nigeria. I'm going to ask you one more question before I go to Mr. Peke. Is the media not already regulated as it is because of course we have the NBC code and then we have obviously the ethics, the rules and regulations as to how you should go about your reportage or your presentations. That's the code in itself. But then there have been arguments of under regulation or over regulation if there's any such thing. And really the person who actually pushed for this bill should it be a non-media person, a non-practitioner, someone who doesn't understand how the sector works, should that person be the one actually pushing for a regulation of the media space? Mary Ann, a lot of times it well to answer your question anybody can push for regulation. Whether it's a participant or not. If you believe that you understand the issues and you believe that there's a room for improvement, then by all means, propose what you want to propose. If you're a member of the National Assembly, propose it as a deal from the National Assembly. If you're a private citizen, propose it as a private bill. So it doesn't matter who's pushing it. The problem is the intention behind this proposed amendment and this new deal is very suspicious. It's less than altruistic. Every time that we have seen government people, whether it's in the legislature, the National Assembly, or in the executive, push for regulation, when you look critically at this, you find that they are simply protecting themselves and they are trying to shield themselves from public outcry and backlash that usually comes from a lot of the very, very terrible behaviour that we see from them. So invariably you find them almost like a knee-jerk reaction coming up with all sorts of regulations that are very, very poorly thought through and so when those things come to the public, there's usually an uproar and outcry. So for me it's not about who's pushing it. It's the motive and the need. I don't think there's any need for this whatsoever. Let me come to you, Nicholas. Recently you put out a tweet. You posted something about the fact that the media or the broadcast media is one of the weakest links when it comes to journalism in Nigeria and I'd like to just quote a little bit of what you said. You did say that, let me see. You talked about the fact that the media is the weakest link or the broadcast media is the weakest link in the industry in Nigeria. It's a very long message that you put out. Why did you feel the need to do that? Because I remember last week when the print had all of their cover pages with the same information standing up against that particular bill. We really didn't see that same kind of momentum from the broadcast media houses. Is this the reason why you decided to put out that statement? Well, I really think that the broadcast media is a punching bag of the government. I mean, when the government wants to get at the media it does bounce on the broadcast media because it has used the embassy which is really a military contraption, if you ask me. Nigeria is a signatory to the declaration of principle of freedom of expression in Africa that was adopted by the African Commission of Human Rights in 2002 and that declaration provides that any public authority that exercises power in the area of broadcast and telecommunication regulation should be independent and adequately protected against interference, particularly of a political and economic nature. But what we have seen is that the embassy that the government uses to regulate the broadcast media is an appendage of the Ministry of Information which automatically makes it an appendage of the presidency and it is not independent. I mean, the president appoints whoever he wants to appoint is the president to appoint whoever he wants to appoint in the past few years. But I mean, isn't that detail for every government agency in Paris-Taito? I mean, literally. These people are all appointed. Even INEC that has independence as an appendage is not as independent as we hope. I just read you a charter that Nigerian is signatory to. You just quoted two sections of the Constitution. There is no other profession in this country that is recognized in the Constitution that is protected by the Constitution. I mean, at the start of the program, you quoted the Constitution that the media is protected. So according to the Constitution, any law, any regulation, any decree that contradicts the Constitution will have to be being because the Constitution is the ultimate law of the country. So no other law, you call INEC, you call none of that. None of these other laws are protected by the Constitution. It's only the media. That's why it's called the Fourth Estate of Iran. That's why it is protected. So when you use the NBC, that is a government appendage. That's a government contraction to recognize the broadcast media. But that is what they do. Where do I start from? They've come up with all sorts of ridiculous directive or decree if I want to call it what they actually are. Don't do press release. Don't take phone calls. Don't take this when somebody says this. Don't take phone calls on radio. Decide from the fact that, oh, don't gather news on Twitter. Don't share news on Twitter. Now don't report insurgency. I mean, where are they going to stop? And this is why, because if you look at that, because the NBC specifically regulates the broadcast media. And that's why Lai Mohamed, the Minister of Information, when this bill that Shedden was talking about was read in the National Assembly, the Minister of Information came and said, no, no, no. We should also include all online publications as well. So because he knows that it doesn't have a control, because the government doesn't have that, the newspaper and the online publications are self-regulatory. And the government doesn't have that control. They don't have a niche over that. So he's trying to bring the online, and then all that, let's say, under the NBC, before the bill was suspended, the bill that was supposed to, the NBC that was supposed to... Why do you think that government wants so badly to control the media, especially broadcast media? Because the government is losing it. It's so simple. How so? If the government has failed, if the government is concerned and has failed in doing what it should do, I mean, there is widespread poverty in the land. There is insecurity in the land. I mean, there are all kinds of brigandage, all kinds of outlaws doing their thing all over the country. I mean, there's a large swath of this country and the government has no control over it anymore. Go to the north-west. Bandits control last swath of the... I mean, they run roughshod at local communities and villages. They kidnap hundreds of people. They kidnap school children. And the government has not had any... Thus, I mean, few days ago, the bandits, so-and-called bandits, of course they are terrorists. That's what they are. They shut down fighter jets. So what are we talking about here? So the government sees that it has lost narrative because it has not been proactive. It has failed to do its basic... I mean, providing strong economy and security are one of the basic functions of government. And this government has failed in that way. So what it does is that it's trying to put a blanket over all of this news so that the people does not... I mean, because in a year or two time, we're going to have another election. This government is scared that with all of this happening that it has lost all of that and the people may punish it during the election. This is all what matters for this government. Nothing else. Okay. Let me go to Fermi. Fermi, when you heard the... or you saw the secular that was released by the NBC, the very good at releasing these secular, by the way. I mean, when I first heard it, I wasn't sure it was real. I thought it was one of those, you know, hoaxes that people post on social media. But when you heard the NBC expressly say, we cannot report on terrorist activity, we cannot name, we cannot give details, what exactly was running through your mind? And how did that make you feel as a person who's very detailed and, you know, as the kind of job that we do, you need to bring facts and figures to, you know, to bear? Okay. So just to say this, to stop it, one of the things I did notice, I mean, I got the good news of the secular coming forward and then after a few hours, you know, just to confirm that if this was going to be something to go by, and that was interesting, but it also gives you room to reflect on what the code is about, what is in the NBC code, for example. The issue of security and reporting issues of security in the NBC code has always been there. The question is, how has that been interpreted by various media houses to an extent? If you notice, one of the things that is now occurring is you are finding a strong dependence between online media, the newspaper and the broadcasters. Before what you used to have is people run their stories almost separately. Of course, every media house, there are stories that is picked up from other newspaper and then you have to now depend on the credibility of that newspaper medium in order for you to be able to say, oh, this is an authentic story, this is it or this is not. That's on one side. But when I really did go through that and I was asking from some of my sources within the same institution about what they had in mind when it comes to this, and they said, well, what we are relying on is to say we are only advising the broadcasters, and I'm saying this explicitly, advising the broadcasters on what is already in the code and how to abide by it even more than ever before. Now here's a scenario that I wanted to point out. The last question you asked me last, and it's interesting because compared to newspaper publications, every 15 minutes you have millions of people listening to you. You have millions of people listening to you. One wrong phrase, one right phrase. Somebody here that doesn't come back to get any other version of that story, who wants with it, had their struggle. Now I think to a large extent we may have donated this service to Nigerians, and I'm not talking about the government now, donated this service to an extent to Nigerians every time we reiterate the strength, possibly the progress, possibly the damage that Boko Haram is doing to Nigerians. I'm not saying the government now. I insist not the government. And it leaves you with room to reflect once in a while to say, okay, so now we just made millions of people aware, but then what are they aware of? Where do they run with such stories? And it depends on the broadcaster now to be responsible, and the choice of responsibility is something that's often varied. Unfortunately, where I strongly thought the NBC is, and by the way, the NBC has had meetings with broadcasters, and I mean some broadcasters in the last three months about twice, and interpretation of what should be continues to be something of interest. But here's the thing, I think to a large extent the NBC could have done a little bit better by encouraging the broadcasters to come forward to say, let's explain what we are saying to you with regards to this. I think you could talk about the fact that social and social people lost their lives. This is the story that happened, but essentially we're not asking you to put the likes of the terrorists in a position where they are glorified, as against glorifying the terrorists or not glorifying the terrorists, doesn't mean the government is doing right. Trust me, I don't want to even go into the bashing of what they do or not do, but in essence, how is the media able to protect the society, the audience that they speak to, the broadcaster, how is he able to protect the audience they speak to? That is a big responsibility. You could talk about the Rwanda Genocide, you could talk about the story in Kano, it was in 2014 when there was a story about oh, if you take this drug, it reduces your fertility and that led to the death of about 42 health workers. Just pick another backstory on that because I also know how irresponsible the person who worked out to say that is. So what measure of responsibility does a broadcaster interpret from the code that he or she is using day by day? That's where the fundamental question is, how do you become responsible for your broadcaster without necessarily coming off as somebody who just wants to ride and just create sensationalism at the expense of Nigerians, not exactly the government. So you're telling me that, and I totally understand where you're coming from especially for radio where you have millions and millions of people listening to the radio on the go, it's very important. You're talking about the fact that we need to be sensitive and responsible in the use of words. But could NBC have also been very sensitive in the words, I mean, because we're talking about what play here, using killed instead of died or slotted and some words that could be very insensitive. I totally understand where you're coming from. But of course that responsibility does lie with the broadcaster. It does lie with the journalists. But if the NBC is telling us not to report, is that not a directive? I don't, to be very candid about the reporting part, I think it's as good as just asking us to do, to play the catch up. I mean, it's literally to say the president was somewhere before you come to say it happened. I also think to a large extent, the speed in which broadcasting is going, I don't think the government understands the speed of that, the speed of what social media does for broadcasting or what broadcasting does for social media or print. It is really, really a challenge that some of our laws cannot catch up with the speed and the effectiveness of what you want to get done. That's on one side. But then I also want to reflect on the idea around when you do say, okay, take the space, for example, whether we say full-on-head smack, for example, it's a whole ethnic tribe you're referring to. Tomorrow, it may be another ethnic tribe you may refer to in terms of what you're saying. But I get killer estimate, certainly, it will take a responsible broadcaster to realize that you do not use ethnic coloration and pushing forward the fact that some group of people within that ethnicity are keen on killing people. So that's something to reflect on. You have the idea of killer heads, man. Imagine when they say Niger Delta militants and the likes of that. What's the difference between having a cause and trying to also terrorize a group without unknown gunmen? These are phrases that, oh, safely would use. And people say things like, oh, okay, why can't the government arrest some key other names or some other group of people? And I often ask a very simple question and I've always candid about this. When it comes to ethnicity and coloration of maybe certain type of crimes, it's a challenge when the broadcaster doesn't even realize it is responsible for that. We don't necessarily get the embassy involved. Yes, the embassy comes in from time to time. There really can be words that can't use on TV. But it is there that to an extent, you should be able to tell that there are certain words that will not come on your broadcast because it is your broadcast that you're responsible for. So to an extent, they may be quoting something from the code that they're asking everybody to remember, but then can they stop anybody from reporting what is going on? I think of it as very responsible not to tell people the fact that, oh, by the way, there's fire outside. Don't pass that pathway. That will be the first element of irresponsibility among Nigerian broadcasters. But we've seen it happen, Therian. And I don't want to dwell. I don't intend to dwell. But we've seen it happen to your sister station and someone was yanked off air because a former CBN governor was on the show and he was stating certain facts that did not sit well with the NBC. And it wasn't the presenter who was stating these facts. The presenter asked questions and these answers came. Of course, the presenter's job is to say, where are your facts? Where did you gather this information? But can you really stop people from saying what they want to say while you're trying to gather information? Because we see the NBC come down on stations, especially if a person comes to say something that is not really welcome by the government. So when you say that you're not sure if the NBC can stop people from doing or reporting, yes, they can. That's the answer. So how do we stop the NBC, or rather should we come to a table to have this conversation with the NBC as to how to do their jobs? Should we be telling them how to do their job? It's a big deal. But let me just move on back to Shagong. Shagong, you are part of the CSOs and the guys who are asking or kicking against the latest coming from the NBC. And you've heard what Fermi is saying. We all have a responsibility, whether we're broadcast journalists, whether we're print, we do have a responsibility. We have codes and ethics that we run this business by. But when you have a government department that seems to be doing the bidding of the master, where does responsibility come in for both parties? Okay. Okay, so let me say this and I'll say it very quickly because I know that we're beginning to run out of time. I know and we all know there's no doubt about it at all. But our government, not just this government as a matter of fact, our government for as long as I can remember have been high-handed, would always look to stifle public opinion and dissenting voices. It's normal. When I say normal, get me right. I mean, it's not unusual in Nigeria and therefore we must resist that. It's our duty and our responsibility to stand against that as proudly as we can. What we must not do, however, is to allow that desire to stand against oppression to rub us of our sense of objectivity and responsibility, right? So now, in this case, I have looked at the letter from the NBC like a million times and I tell you, Miriam, I still don't understand why we say it's an order not to report on terrorism. I'm sorry, there's no such order. What the letter has said is very simple and I think feminine hits the nail on the head. Be responsible with how you report. Choose your words carefully because if you are not, then you quote inadvertently and I think in some instances deliberately further the cause of the enemies of Nigeria that is the insurgents and the terrorists. Let me give you a simple example. If you will allow me, I'm going to name two platforms, two online platforms. Reporting the same story. Premium Times says Nigeria Army kills six terrorists and repels attack. Sahara Report says Boko Haram, Iswab, Oberon, Nigeria Army base. The same story. So it's a very simple thing. I think what we're saying is we must present the facts as they are so that the public knows. But because we know we have a platform and we have millions of people listening to us and the wars that we're fighting are largely battles for the minds of people. Let's not forget this. It's an ideological war. That's why they're called terrorists. So when we report news in certain ways, what we do inadvertently is we spread terror. So if something has happened and it's bad, say it's bad. You don't have a choice because you can't lie about the truth. But in saying it's bad, you can choose how you say it's bad. And I think that's what the NBC is saying. If they try to gag anybody as they have seen, they will be strongly resisted and they will be refused and they will not get away with it. So I think for me it's a simple case of let all be responsible, let all be accountable as we've always done and we'll continue to do whether they like it or not. But let's also hold each other accountable so we don't further the cause of people that are fighting against our interests. So for me I think I'd like to keep it short that way. Okay. Back to you Nicholas. I see that premium times was cited in that analogy. But going forward, how can Nigeria play on the same level with international media because we still seem to be playing catch up with the fact that our governments, past and previous, present and previous are bigger part. And I still yet to come to terms with the power of the media and how the media should work. I also see that most of the media houses in Nigeria are somewhat owned by governments and the few that are independent have a problem with being extremely objective or, but there seems to be some freedom of course in Nigeria compared to other African countries where we see the media not being able to state things the way they should be stated. Yes, we see stories coming but those stories most times are watered down. So how do we going forward, how do we as the media become more responsible and also still stand on both feet to stare government down and let them understand that we also have a role to play in service to the people who are looking to us as the final hope or the hope of sorts to give them proper information and we're also a conduit of sorts for the people to be able to air their views especially for radio as concerning the leadership in the country. So going forward, what do we need to do? Are we supposed to meet each other halfway and I'm talking about the end we see the government and the media? I really don't think that the media role is to meet anybody halfway. I mean, our role is specifically stated. I mean, we are washed down. We are the world down. We mentioned that governments do not, I mean, we keep the government in check about what does the media do? I mean, the media speaks truth to power. So you cannot speak truth to power by meeting somebody halfway. It's an uncompromising job by saying that we should meet somebody halfway. Then we are compromising. So this is where I stand with that. I don't think the media should meet anybody halfway. I think the media has its role to play and we should inform the people. I mean, what's the government's... I mean, getting worried over some of these issues. I mean, if you ask me. Largely, go back and look at the reporting of the insurgency. The media, the media I think has been fair. There are one or two oddballs. I mean, blogs and all of that. And this is everywhere in the world. Everywhere in the world that we have media you're going to have some kind of media... Is it anti-government? Yeah, anti-government. And the French media group that does their own thing, you know, they always are the fringes of the old media industry. That is what they do. Go anywhere in the world to see this. That should not be a problem that the government should, because of it, be issued a decree and directive over and over again. Go back. Take 10 stories about banditry. Take 10 stories about Boko Haram report and ask me from credible Nigerian newspapers and ask me if the media has not reported them well. Of course, people will go with traditional headlines and all of that. Those can be handled with... I mean, individual... Some newspaper, some online media do all of that. But largely, people are able to separate the weight from the charge. That's why people say, oh, this is a credible media organization. Or are we wrong with it? This is said by the guidance. Oh, this is from punch. Definitely, it has to be credible. Oh, people have done this. Oh, not these X and Y people that we are already known to do sensational reporting. Now, what is dangerous, what the government is doing? I absolutely disagree with Sherwin when he said, oh, the media can resist the NBC. Hell no, the media cannot resist. The broadcast media has shown over and over and over and over. Are you saying that the NBC is just extremely powerful that we cannot stand up to it? With the code that we have and the constitution that covers us, what are telling us that a group of persons are more powerful than the constitution? I'm coming to that. Look for a word stronger than extreme. That is what the NBC. The NBC has a noose around the name of all broadcast media. If the NBC says jump, all broadcast media will ask how I should be jumped. There's no way up. That's not, I mean, this is what I said about this. We're out of time. And this is what I advocated. Now, it's a good thing you talked about with the constitution. And this is what I have been pushing on my traditional media platform. Have any media company in this country try to test that constitutional right that they have. Go to court and say this directive contradicts this constitution. Let the court decide if indeed that directive contradicts the constitution. Nicholas, I will bring you back and I will have this debate with you. And let's see if we can talk about testing the waters of the constitution. But finally, Femi, a last word from you before we go because we're out of time. Well, one of the things I think is very important that the media broadcast media come to realize this to explore some of the tunes that which they would use to engage the NBC going forward. We've not really had the longest your many moments of engaging as such. There's been few occasions where broadcast stations do take NBC to court. But that is not something we want to go on to over and over again. It's all about propaganda. It's all about the use of words that comes in from different places. The government needs also to tell its own side of the story if they choose to tell their own version of the truth. If the one is to be covered and not just the other side being covered as much as it has already been covered. They need to speak a little bit more. Not even so much as balance. But we will be able to tell what are the sides of the story whether opposing or on the same side. The military needs to say more about what they're doing and why they're doing it why they're doing it so so that we don't just look like every day it's like it's disaster, disaster, disaster. But if there's a good story to tell I'm sure that the press will tell it. On that note guys I want to say thank you. Nicolás Bécois is a premium times Fermi Diamele is of Nigeria Info FM of Boudja and Sheryl Chopitin is of Act Network. Thank you very much gentlemen very interesting conversation. Let's do it again. Thank you so much. All right. Well thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a short, short break and when we return we'll discuss the legal aspect of the defection of Zamper Estate Governor Bélo Matawali. Stay with us.