Connect with us

Opinion

Religion , Ethics And Journalism: The NASCO Story

Published

4 years ago

on

 

By Jonathan Ishaku

One of the setbacks of tackling terrorism in Nigeria today is the tendency to conflate it with religion. As a multi-religious society, journalists need to be faithful in the rendition of the terrorism narrative without sacrificing truth or objectivity. That, however, starts with the understanding of what terrorism is and what it is not! Even at that they will have to abide by their professional ethics in their reportage in order to not only safeguard professional integrity but also to protect national security and unity.

This is for the reason that an unprofessional handling of the terrorism narrative often drives two opposing extremes: those who, on the basis of religion, simply deny the existence of terrorism in its entirety, on the one hand, and those who erroneously equate Islam with terrorism, on the other. This has severe consequences for the society in countering the threat.

Court finds 10-year-old boy guilty of Culpable Homicide

The first tendency hinders consensus in tackling terrorism in its embryonic and subsequent stages. To butters this, I once quoted Prof. Yakubu, a Muslim scholar and former Vice Chancellor of University of Abuja who told a gathering at a book launch organized by De Minaret International at Abuja in May 2012 that “the country was under attack by bad elements within the Muslim community and Muslim leaders were not doing enough to fish out the suspects.” (Daily Trust, May 7, 2012). Indeed, many Muslim leaders had criticized the designation of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization because they argue that they were Muslims.

The other extreme is equally invidious; it is divisive. The article “Cornflakes for Jihad: The Boko Haram Origin Story” by one David Hundeyin which went viral in the first week of October 2021, in my opinion, illustrates this tendency. As one who had published a book, entitled “Boko Haram: How Religious Intolerance threatens Nigeria,” in 2009, and reputed to be one of the first books on the subject, I was naturally intrigued. I went through Mr. Hundeyin’s article several times.

In the end I concluded that Akwa Ibom-born Mr. Hundeyin, whose real name is David Inyene-Obong Nugboyon Oluwaseun, leaned too heavily on the notion equating the Islamic religion with terrorism. His analysis provided no evidential linkage between NASCO, the manufacturers of Nigeria’s leading cornflakes brand and Boko Haram, the terrorist group which he dressed in the religious toga of jihad except reinforcing the erroneous notion that Muslims and Muslim leaders are sponsors of terrorism. I do not dispute that Boko Haram sees itself as waging a jihad, using terrorism, but donning a Muslim-owned corporate entity like NASCO such a label would require substantial proof of evidence that it indeed actually involved itself in the crime of terrorism. It should be clear that Boko Haram is NOT being fought because it claims to be a radical or extremist Islamic group or that it is an acclaimed jihadist movement, no. Boko Haram is being prosecuted because it is involved in the crime of terrorism; killings, bloody sieges against communities, kidnappings, insurgency, and many acts of terror and violence against the people! Radical movements exist in all religions, it is no crime but when they begin to resort to violence they cross into the threshold of terrorism and criminality.

Alex P. Schmid, a leading scholar on terrorism, warns the linkage between radicalization and religious extremism is tendentious. Schmid said, “While both stand at the same distance from mainstream political thinking, the first tends to be open-minded, while the second manifests a closed mind and distinct willingness to use violence against civilians.” (Schmid, 2013). Radicalism gave the blacks equal rights in the US, independence to Nigeria in 1960, ousted Apartheid in South Africa in 1990, brought about the liberation of Southern Sudan in 2011, etc. Extremism, however, fuels violent terrorism. Although a majority of such violence is religious, among the plethora of modern-day extremist groups with known terrorist track-record are: secular/political/anarchists, right-wing, left-wing, ethno-nationalists and single-issue extremists.

Advert

For example, the Ombatse killings in Nasarawa State in which over 60 security operatives were killed in 2013 fell into one of these categories. Which category does the bandits who attack Christians and Muslims equally, and kill worshippers in churches and mosques, fall? Any reporter that cannot figure out the distinction shouldn’t report on terrorism!

Apart from understanding the subject of investigation and the pursuit of objectivity, professional integrity is also crucial in reporting terrorism. When a reporter reports on terrorism his or her motives shouldn’t be opened to questioning. Journalists are guided by the principle of telling the truth, not half-truths, but “the whole truth.” Mr. Hundeyin was on a thing when he reported that the late founder of NASCO International, Dr. Ahmed Nasreddin, was on the United Nations Security Council’s list of sanctions back in 2002 over suspicion of terrorism financing. In the research for my 2009 book, I also discovered this, but it never appeared in my book because that wasn’t “the whole truth.” The truth is that suspicion alone doesn’t constitute culpability.

Dr. Nasreddin’s plight came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorism bombing of the World Trade Centre twin towers and the Pentagon. As in all panicky situations, both the USA and the UNSC, without resort to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, embarked on sanctions against some suspected individuals and corporate entities. One of such entities was Bank Al Taqwa owned by Youssef Nada, and a bank in which Dr. Nasreddin was a director. Although NASCO International was never implicated, owing to the inclusion of its founder, it was equally blacklisted and suffered some sanctions in Italy, Switzerland, Turkey Morocco, and the Bahamas. However, NASCO Group Nigeria, which operated independently was never closed down aside the proceedings in a Nigerian high court referenced by the author. In 2008, however, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) determined that the UNSC blacklist was arbitrary and a violation of human rights.

Meanwhile, after a thorough investigation by the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Committee between late 2007 and early 2008, on January 17, 2008, the UN Security Council fully exonerated Dr. Ahmed Nasreddin and NASCO International of involvement in terrorism financing, vide UNSC Resolution S/2008/25. This is the whole truth regarding Hundeyin’s story “Cornflakes for Jihad”. So why did the journalist choose to omit this vital information from his report? Did he have a hidden agenda then? Why did he prefer to run with the half-truth than “the whole truth”?

Furthermore, when reporting “the whole truth,” many trained, as opposed to social media emergency reporters, are adept to the principles and practice of restraint and responsibility. My professor illustrated this point with the allegory of “fire in the crowded cinema hall.” If you notice an outbreak of fire at the back of the crowded hall, will you scream “Fire!” knowing very well that many people will die or be injured in the ensuing stampede? I don’t know what training in journalism or public relations the police Public Relations Officer in Jos, Plateau State had received, but I knew he was untrained and unfit for the office when at the unfortunate killing of 22 travelers from Bauchi en route Ondo State, in Jos, on August 14, 2021, he went on air to announce that “Muslim travelers were killed by Christian Irigwe youths.” The reaction to the announcement was predictable, Jos went up in flames!

From the outbreak of violence on the August 14 and August 25, when “unknown gunmen” killers invaded a community in the vicinity in Jos killing 38 people, till the end of September 2021 that normalcy gradually returned, the peace in Jos was quite fragile indeed, with the University of Jos and several businesses under lock. It was under these circumstances, that on October 3, 2021, Mr. Hundeyin released his bombshell, guaranteed to set NASCO on fire and rekindle another bloodbath of religious clashes in the city. For what purpose?

Half-truths packaged in incendiary language targeting the largest employer of labour in tensed Jos! Did the author ever consider what the people had just passed through? Did he exercise restraint and responsibility in consideration of the interests of the inhabitants, the returning students, economic activities, and growth of the state in particular and national security and unity in general?

The religious sentiment beclouding terrorism reportage could of itself turn into a weapon of violence. But for the general caution of the public, the aforesaid article would have plunged Jos city into another orgy of violence, while the author is ensconced in the comfort of his self-styled exile somewhere abroad.

Both Christians and Muslims are victims of terrorism. Terrorists spare no one. That is why both Muslim and Christians have called on the Federal Government to declare the bandits, killers and kidnappers in the North West and Middle Belt as terrorists because of the mayhem they have unleashed on the people not because of their religion.

About the author:
Ishaku is a journalist and writer. He is also Member of the Editorial Advisory Board, The Independent Newspaper.

.

Related Topics:

Opinion

Of The Dead, Say Nothing But Good-Bala Ibrahim

Published

2 hours ago

on

December 16, 2025

By

 

 

By Bala Ibrahim.

The caption above is not mine, it’s borrowed from an ancient Latin proverb that says, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum.” The literal meaning of the proverb is that-it’s inappropriate, disrespectful or even rude, to speak ill of the dead because, they can’t defend themselves. In Islam, there is a hadith that goes thus: “Do not curse the dead, for they have reached the result of what they have done. There is also a Christian principle with similar ambition, like Proverbs 24:17-18 (don’t rejoice in enemy’s fall) and Ephesians 4:32 (be kind, forgiving). All of them are reflecting on the importance of saying nothing but good about the dead. The two religions are encouraging us to focus on God’s grace and the good qualities of the dead, by letting go of bitterness and leaving judgment to God, because, it’s unfair to speak ill of those who can’t defend themselves.

Yesterday, Monday, a book was unveiled at the Presidential Villa Abuja, titled “From Soldier to Statesman”. It is a biography of the late former president, Muhammadu Buhari, authored by Charles Omole. Reacting to the book, President Tinubu said late President Muhammadu Buhari was a leader defined by integrity, discipline and a lifelong commitment to public service, whose legacy should guide future leaders rather than be reduced to slogans. He said the book offers Nigerians the opportunity to learn from Mr Buhari and affirmed that the greatest honour to be bestowed on the late President is to sustain his legacy, to which his administration would do. These are comments that come in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

On his side also, Mr. Yusuf Magaji Bichi, the former Director General of the Department of State Services, DSS, who served under Buhari as well as briefly under President Tinubu, he eulogized Buhari very well, describing those accusing him of rigging elections as ignorants. He stated that the late former President Muhammadu Buhari lacked any tendency to rig elections. He was too correct to engage in such wrong doings. Those are comments that came in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

Advert

Even in the journalism profession, we are tutored to distant ourselves from doing stories that carry the badge of bias. The imperative of balancing stories in journalism is the cornerstone of ethical practice. The aim is for journalists to be seen as fair, impartial, and accurate in the presentation of events. That way, an informed public debate would be fostered always. Without hearing the other side, if published, the story is classified, or even crucified, as unbalanced and unfair. That is the imperative of balancing in order to champion the truth and accuracy. If you submit a story that carries one side only, without the other side, you have failed in upholding the truth and accuracy, thereby denting the cradle of credibility and public trust. The credibility of the story becomes more questioned, when the other side belongs to the dead. That is a professional position in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing bad about the living, talk less of the dead.

But, in something “surprising” (and I put the word surprising in inverted comma because, it hits me as an unethical act), the widow of late President Muhammadu Buhari, Hajiya Aisha Buhari, commented in contrast to the missions of both Islam and Christianity, as well as the positions of many professions and ethical values. In her comments about the dead, on whom the book was written, Aisha is quoted all over the media, as saying somewhere in the book, that her late husband, former President Muhammadu Buhari, became distrustful of her at the tail end of their stay in the villa. According to her, Buhari bought into gossips and fearmongering, to the extent that he began locking up his room when going out, because he was told she was planning to kill him. “My husband believed them for a week or so. Buhari began locking his room, altered his daily habits, and most critically, meals were delayed or missed, the supplements were stopped. For a year, he did not have lunch. They mismanaged his meals.”

Whoever the “they” may be, these are not the kind of comments to expect from a widow, whose late husband is in the grave. They are comments that run contrary to the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead, and in conflict with the principle of balancing, in the narration of a story. She gave her own side, which she wants the world to believe, knowing fully that we can not get the other side. That’s unethical. Everyone said something good about late Buhari, which requires no balancing. But the submission of Aisha is a balderdash, that is not balanced.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dr Bello Matwallle: Why Dialogue Still Matters in the Fight Against Insecurity

Published

3 days ago

on

December 13, 2025

By

 

By Musa Iliyasu Kwankwaso

In the history of leadership, force may be loud, but wisdom delivers results. This is why security experts agree that while military action can suppress violence temporarily, dialogue is what permanently closes the door to conflict. It is a lesson the world has learned through blood, loss, and painful experience.

When Dr. Bello Matawalle, as Governor of Zamfara State, chose dialogue and reconciliation, it was not a sign of weakness. It was a different kind of courage one that placed the lives of ordinary citizens above political applause. A wise leader measures success not by bullets fired, but by lives saved.

Across conflict zones, history has consistently shown that force alone does not end insecurity. Guns may damage bodies, but they do not eliminate the roots of violence. This understanding forms the basis of what experts call the non-kinetic approach conflict resolution through dialogue, reconciliation, justice, and social reform.

When Matawalle assumed office, Zamfara was deeply troubled. Roads were closed, markets shut down, farmers and herders operated in fear, and citizens lived under constant threat. Faced with this reality, only two options existed: rely solely on military force or combine security operations with dialogue. Matawalle chose the path widely accepted across the world security reinforced by dialogue not out of sympathy for criminals, but to protect innocent lives.

Advert

This approach was not unique to Zamfara. In Katsina State, Governor Aminu Bello Masari led peace engagements with armed groups. In Maiduguri granted amnesty to repentant offenders of Boko Haram, In Sokoto, dialogue was also pursued to reduce bloodshed. These precedents raise a simple question: if dialogue is acceptable elsewhere, why is Matawalle singled out?

At the federal level, the same logic applies. Through Operation Safe Corridor, the Federal Government received Boko Haram members who surrendered, offered rehabilitation and reintegration, and continued military action against those who refused to lay down arms. This balance
rehabilitation for those who repent and force against those who persist is the core of the non-kinetic approach.

Security experts globally affirm that military force contributes only 20 to 30 percent of sustainable solutions to insurgency. The remaining 70 to 80 percent lies in dialogue, justice, economic reform, and addressing poverty and unemployment. Even the United Nations states clearly: “You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency.”

During Matawalle’s tenure, several roads reopened, cattle markets revived, and daily life began to normalize. If insecurity later resurfaced, the question is not whether dialogue was wrong, but whether broader coordination failed.

Today, critics attempt to recast past security strategies as crimes. Yet history is not blind, and truth does not disappear. Matawalle’s actions were rooted in expert advice, national precedent, and global best practice.

The position of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, who publicly affirmed that Matawalle’s approach was appropriate and that military force accounts for only about 25 percent of counterinsurgency success, further reinforces this reality. Such views cannot be purchased or manufactured; they reflect established security thinking.

In the end, dialogue is not a betrayal of justice it is often its foundation. And no amount of political noise can overturn decisions grounded in evidence, experience, and the priority of human life.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Matawalle: The Northern Anchor of Loyalty in Tinubu’s Administration

Published

1 week ago

on

December 8, 2025

By

 

By Adebayor Adetunji, PhD

In the broad and competitive terrain of Nigerian politics, loyalty is often spoken of, yet rarely sustained with consistency, courage and visible action. But within the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, one Northern appointee has demonstrated this quality not as a slogan, but as a lifestyle, as a political principle and as a national duty — Hon. (Dr.) Bello Muhammad Matawalle, Minister of State for Defence.

Since his appointment, Matawalle has stood out as one of the most loyal, outspoken and dependable pillars of support for the Tinubu administration in the North. He has never hesitated, not for a moment, to stand firmly behind the President. At every turn of controversy, in moments of public misunderstanding, and at times when political alliances waver, Matawalle has continued to speak boldly in defence of the government he serves. For him, loyalty is not an occasional gesture — it is a commitment evidenced through voice, alignment, and sacrifice.

Observers within and outside the ruling party recall numerous occasions where the former Zamfara State Governor took the front line in defending the government’s policies, actions and direction, even when others chose neutrality or silence. His interventions, always direct and clear, reflect not just loyalty to a leader, but faith in the future the President is building, a future anchored on economic reform, security revival, institutional strengthening and renewed national unity.

Advert

But Matawalle’s value to the administration does not stop at loyalty. In performance, visibility and active delivery of duty, he stands among the most engaged ministers currently serving in the federal cabinet. His portfolio, centred on defence and security, one of the most sensitive sectors in the country, demands expertise, availability and unbroken presence. Matawalle has not only embraced this responsibility, he has carried it with remarkable energy.

From high-level security meetings within Nigeria to strategic engagements across foreign capitals, Matawalle has represented the nation with clarity and confidence. His participation in defence summits, international cooperation talks, and regional security collaborations has positioned Nigeria as a voice of influence in global security discourse once again. At home, his involvement in military policy evaluation, counter-terrorism discussions and national defence restructuring reflects a minister who understands the urgency of Nigeria’s security needs, and shows up to work daily to address them.

Away from partisan battles, Matawalle has proven to be a bridge — between North and South, civilian leadership and military institutions, Nigeria and the wider world. His presence in government offers a mix of loyalty, performance and deep grounding in national interest, the type of partnership every President needs in turbulent times.

This is why calls, campaigns and whisperings aimed at undermining or isolating him must be resisted. Nigeria cannot afford to discourage its best-performing public servants, nor tighten the atmosphere for those who stand firmly for unity and national progress. The nation must learn to applaud where there is performance, support where there is loyalty, and encourage where there is commitment.

Hon. Bello Matawalle deserves commendation, not suspicion. Support — not sabotage. Encouragement, not exclusion from political strategy or power alignment due to narrow interests.

History does not forget those who stood when it mattered. Matawalle stands today for President Tinubu, for security, for loyalty, for national service. And in that place, he has earned a space not only in the present political equation, but in the future judgment of posterity.

Nigeria needs more leaders like him. And Nigeria must say so openly.

Adebayor Adetunji, PhD
A communication strategist and public commentator
Write from Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria

Continue Reading

Trending