Connect with us

Opinion

The BBC in Nigeria – Between Reporting and Propagating Terror – By Kadaria Ahmed

Published

on

Kadaria Ahmad

It has simply gotten out of hand.

Journalists and now a global media organisation of repute, the BBC, which should know better, are becoming a tool for terrorists, even if unwittingly, by amplifying the faces, voices and stories of killers and marauders who are still operating with impunity across Nigeria.

The public interest argument seems to have been misunderstood, some may even say misrepresented, to enable sensationalist reporting that is very unlikely to be allowed on screens in the United Kingdom. By not upholding the same standards as they would uphold in the UK, in their work in Nigeria, the BBC Africa Eye producers in their latest documentary titled ‘The Bandits Warlords of Zamfara’ have provided a global platform to terrorists and can be accused of becoming an accomplice to terror in the name of reporting it.

When Communications Professor at the University of Toronto Mahmoud Eid coined the term Terroredia, in his book Exchanging Terrorism Oxygen for Media Airwaves, Eid argues that there is now a ‘relationship between terrorists and media professionals in which acts of terrorism and media coverage are exchanged, influenced, and fuelled by one another.’ Since it was written 7 years ago, it would appear the case Eid was trying to make is now quite self-evident, especially in Nigeria where increasingly, propaganda videos and statements by terror groups as well as features on terror leaders are finding their way into mainstream media. We can now easily identify, for example, the faces of the major kingpins responsible for the widespread kidnappings and killings that are occurring on a daily basis in the Northern part of Nigeria, no thanks to having their pictures and videos splashed all over the pages of newspapers and on our television screens almost as if they are Nollywood A-listers.

None of this has ‘helped’ our inept government, led by President Muhamadu Buhari, to find and arrest these blood-thirsty criminals. The ‘pressure’ has also not stopped the administration from playing ostrich and finding an effective way of tackling insecurity. These are some of the public interest arguments put forward by those defending the featuring of predatory criminals on national and now international media platforms.

2023 Elections: IPAC Rejects Purported Deployment of Yusuf Kolo as Kano CP

The arguments also include an assertion that hearing from terrorists helps us better understand the conflicts and therefore come up with solutions. Under the guise of public interest, this is the argument that BBC Africa Eye seems to be presenting, to justify its decision to actively give copious screen time to self-confessed murderers and kidnappers, who are still actively involved in attacking communities, killing, kidnapping, pillaging and generally making life brutish and a living hell for the people of Nigeria’s North-western State of Zamfara and beyond.

The two promotional clips released for the documentary, the Bandits Warlords of Zamfara , feature a marauder who should remain nameless here, confirming that he was part of those who raided Jengebe girls’ secondary school in the state, abducting over 300 students with the attendant horror of these sorts of crimes normally entail, and releasing them, after the payment of ransom. Evidently, the BBC Africa Eye team also had no problem utilising footage that appears to have been shot by these self-confessed criminals because this makes it into the second trailer. No media of repute would take this decision because it is generally understood that these sorts of videos are recorded by terrorists for one thing and one thing only: propaganda.

Reports of the documentary in national newspapers also quote one of the featured criminals boasting, in the documentary, that he only kills, and doesn’t kidnap for ransom. This is the nature of the program that the ‘reputable’ BBC Africa Eye is positioning as having a public interest imperative.

To be clear, the current state of insecurity and all that it entails is the fault of the Federal Government, led by President Muhammadu Buhari, and he must be held responsible for the carnage and state of anarchy engulfing the nation. That does not however mean irresponsible reporting by the media, which after all should champion the common man, should not be challenged.

If terrorists were killing and kidnapping British citizens, especially young children, the BBC would not enable interviews by the perpetrators, particularly if they were still roaming footloose and fancy-free, without an iota of remorse for their crimes and also carrying out many more. The trauma to the psyche of the British public will be unbearable, and the BBC would not be willing to pay that price, or risk the legal consequences sure to ensue.

In the era of the Irish Republican Army, the IRA, for example, the group didn’t make it onto the airwaves of the BBC. Indeed, reporting of the activities of the political party seen as the political arm of the IRA, Sein Fein, was heavily censored. Every time they spoke, the BBC deleted their voices and replaced them with those of actors, in obedience to British Government directives which were put in place because the authorities believed publicity is like air for ‘terrorists’ groups, helping them to grow and thrive. And even though Sein Fein shared what many might argue is only an ideological position with the IRA, they were denied a presence on British airwaves in substantial ways.

Here in Nigeria, concerns about the impact the amplification of terrorists’ voices will have both on victims, their families and the public appear to be a secondary consideration to the BBC’s insistence on hearing from the bandits’ first-hand accounts and justification for their murderous activities.

There is no good argument that can justify the damage this is doing to the public that includes the school girls in Jangebe, who can now in perpetuity, watch the story of their abductions from the mouth of their abductors and relive the attendant trauma of that horrible crime.

#

For all of these school girls, victims and their families, the BBC Africa Eye has confirmed their attackers’ invincibility. By documenting and handing over on a platter of gold one of the most respected media brands in the world to justify their actions, the BBC has iconised violent men leading marauding militias that are killing, abducting, maiming and leaving terror in their wake across large sways of Nigeria and who are clearly neither sorry for their crime nor looking to stop anytime soon.

It is hard to see how this will not contribute to deepening fear, mistrust, hopelessness and damage to the national psyche while undoubtedly helping with recruitment, all ingredients that actively contribute to successful outcomes for terror groups.

The public’s right to know is a sacrosanct tenant of journalists who are not and should not be in the job of censoring news. Finding the balance between that and ensuring media platforms do not provide the oxygen of publicity for terrorists and criminals is not easy, but it is at these difficult junctures that good journalism needs to stand its ground.

Recognising the importance of getting it right globally, experts including those at the BBC have taken the trouble to develop guidelines for reporting difficult stories including stories of conflict and terrorism. The German Press Code for example says “in reporting actual and threatened acts of violence, the Press should carefully weigh the public’s interest in information against the interest of victims and other people involved. It should report on such incidents in an independent and authentic way, but not allow itself to be made the tool of criminals. Nor should it undertake independent attempts to mediate between criminals and the police. THERE MUST BE NO INTERVIEWS WITH PERPETRATORS DURING ACTS OF VIOLENCE.’’

The German guidelines are unequivocal about not giving airtime to criminals involved in ongoing criminal activities and for very good reason. The BBC’s editorial guidelines are more watery, perhaps explaining why the BBC Africa Eye team is able to be cavalier about such a critical issue. But even these guidelines say “any proposal to approach an organisation (or an individual member of an organisation) designated a ‘terrorist group’ by the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Acts, and any proposal to approach individuals or organisations responsible for acts of terror, to participate in our output must be referred in advance to Director Editorial Policy and Standard and also any proposal to broadcast content made by perpetrators of a hijacking, kidnapping, hostage-taking or siege must be referred to a senior editorial figure.’’

The questions to answer therefore include: did senior people in London at the BBC fully understood that they were authorizing the recording of terrorists who are still active and who between them have been responsible for the abduction, rape and killings of thousands of people including school children?

There are other questions.

When homeland terrorists committed the inconceivable crime of hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in May 2013, would the BBC have considered it in the public interest to interview these terrorists? To compare apples with apples, imagine that hero Rigby’s murderers were never held for their crimes, continued butchering people and collecting seven figure ransoms., would the BBC dare to send reporters to film the murderers gloating about collecting ransom, and then hold Twitter Spaces and bask in views, clicks and likes?
The answer is NO. The BBC would never dare.

Why then is the BBC okay to fund, then publicise the glorification of practicing murderers still butchering hundreds across Nigeria and the Chad Basin? How did this three-year disregard for African lives come about, and why is this acceptable?

By their own admission, the BBC Africa Eye producers claim their reporting occurred over three-years. This is clearly well before the crime against the school girls in Jangebe occurred. These bandits and their factions commit cross-border crimes. Therefore, as a matter of urgent national and regional security, other questions which the BBC must answer publicly, in the actual interest of the public include:

1. In all these years it was conducting these ‘investigations’ of terrorists, did the BBC harbour information on potential criminal or or actual crimes they happened an did the BBC withhold this information from the relevant African security authorities?

2. After the particular interviews in which the murderers admit their collection of ransoms, and committing acts of kidnap, did the BBC hand over any of this footage to the authorities, and do so in a timely manner?

3. What footage and information has the BBC handed over to law enforcement, since the publication of this documentary?

In covering a subset of criminals for three years, the BBC has brazenly admitted that it was shooting criminals before, during and after the commission of dastardly crimes that have destroyed generations present and unborn.

The BBC Africa Eye documentaries series have been designed specifically for release on social media platforms (Facebook and YouTube). Given the programme’s track record of dubious editorial decisions and accusations of unethical behaviour including by local reporters who worked with them, BBC managers in London should also explain if the decision to put this documentary out on social media was designed to ensure its producers are not held to the high global broadcast standards the BBC is known for and which are applicable to content broadcast within the UK?

When BBC Africa Eye did a story on drug addiction in Nigeria, there were attempts by a producer to sensationalize some of the reporting, to make it more gripping. On that occasion, he was working with a seasoned and brave journalist who pushed back.

When they did a story on Sex for Grades, the two reporters responsible for the story ended up trading blame on social media over sex for by-line allegations. Again, the producers didn’t come out smelling of roses.

An investigative report by them on a popular talk show host in Nigeria who is revered by millions saw the journalist who did that reporting flee his home together with his family as a result of threats to his life. The BBC failed in its duty of care to this local journalist and in the end fellow journalists had to rally around to provide him with safe spaces.

In all, the team at BBC Africa Eye appear to be striving to do reporting that would be unacceptable in the UK for being unethical and transparently against public interest.

The problem is they have capitalised on the justified anger of the people and the inconceivable failure of the government, to once again resurrect the ugliest vestiges of colonialism, which one had hoped were long buried.

The unfolding anarchy and violence in Nigeria are serious matters, and every attempt must be made to keep the public informed. A documentary that investigates and examines government failures while centring victims and their families would have done that.

Giving boastful, bloodthirsty criminals a global platform serves only two purposes. It provides free publicity for terror and enables the BBC to push viewership figures on social media.

It does nothing for public service. Even if it does not realise it, the BBC’s reputation for stellar public service journalism is being damaged.

Black lives, their humanity and national security, should matter more than clicks.

Hopefully someone in London will take note.

Kadaria Ahmed was a Senior Producer at the BBC in London and is now CEO at Radio Now 95.3FM Lagos

Opinion

Clarification On Recent Events During The Eid-El-Fitr Celebration In Kano: A Response To The GiGG’s Malicious Statement

Published

on

Clarification On Recent Events During The Eid-El-Fitr Celebration In Kano: A Response To The GiGG’s Malicious Statement

In light of the recent malicious statement issued by the Global Initiatives for Good Governance (GIGG), which disrespects constituted authority and has the potential to cause uncertainty and security breaches regarding the events during the Eid-el-Fitr celebrations in Kano, it is important to provide clarification regarding the actions of both the Emir of Kano, Mallam Muhammadu Sanusi II, and Governor HE. Abba Kabir Yusuf.

First and foremost, it is essential to clarify that there was no Durbar held during this Eid celebration. Rather, what took place was the Emir’s procession to and from the Eid prayer at Kofar Mata, located outside the eastern city wall. This procession is a long-standing Islamic tradition (Sunnah), which involves taking a different route from the one followed to the prayer ground when returning. The Emir’s procession, limited to his guards and close officials, followed this practice in accordance with Islamic traditions. Unlike the Durbar, which is a formal parade involving district heads and traditional horse riders symbolizing allegiance to the Emir and the Emirate, this procession was conducted with full attention to both tradition and public safety.

Durbar celebrations, as historically practiced, have not been held regularly in recent years, mainly due to concerns from security forces. The recent event was no exception. Both the Emir and the Governor acted with the intention of striking a balance between preserving cultural practices and ensuring the safety and security of the public. They did not disregard the law or public safety, rather, their actions were aimed at preventing the potential exploitation of the occasion by individuals seeking to disrupt peace and stability.

The breakdown of law and order that occurred was due to the actions of alleged, sponsored criminal elements who hijacked the occasion to create chaos. These individuals sought to tarnish the reputations of both the Emir and the Governor, possibly even attempting to blackmail them and state. We commend the Nigeria Police Force for their swift action in making arrests, which is an important step toward uncovering the full extent of the individuals and networks behind these destructive activities.

#

It is also essential to address the concerns raised by the faceless NGO. While the police do not have the constitutional authority to outrightly ban traditional programs such as this, they are within their rights to call for a suspension or cancellation based on actionable intelligence aimed at maintaining public safety. Any formal ban, however, would require adherence to due legal process.

The nation is now closely watching the Nigeria Police Force, and we are hopeful that justice will be served swiftly. We trust that ongoing investigations will identify all those responsible for these disruptive actions and ensure accountability.

A.T. Abdullahi
A Concerned Kano Indigene
31st March 2025

Continue Reading

Opinion

Periscoping Waiya’s Alleged Assault on Free Press Viz the Preponderance of Mob Reasoning

Published

on

 

By Al Amin Ubandoma

The recent controversy surrounding Kano State Commissioner for Information, Ambassador Ibrahim Waiya, has sparked heated debates about free press and mob reasoning. The controversy began with an opinionated article written by one Auwalu Ismail, which criticized Waiya that was widely circulated online.

The article contained allegedly malicious and defamatory statements about Ambassador Ibrahim Waiya. As a public figure, Waiya has the right to defend himself against such attacks, and his decision to report the matter to the police was a legitimate exercise of this right.

However, the response from journalists and Amnesty International was swift and merciless. Without recourse to the violation of Waiya’s rights, they condemned his actions as an assault on free press and a threat to democracy.

This mob-like response is a classic example of mob reasoning, where emotions and sensationalism override rational thinking and fairness.

The implications of this response are far-reaching. If public figures like Ambassador Ibrahim Waiya are not allowed to defend themselves against malicious attacks, it could create a culture of impunity where anyone can make false and defamatory statements without consequence.

Furthermore, the response from journalists and Amnesty International undermines the principles of fairness and justice as enshrined in journalistic ethics.

By failing to consider Waiya’s side of the story and his right to defend himself, Amnesty international, and its co-travellers perpetuated a one-sided narrative that ignored the complexities of the issue at stake.

The controversy surrounding Waiya highlights the need for fairness and balance in public discourse. While free press is essential to democracy, it is equally important to protect the rights and privileges of public figures like Ambassador Waiya.

By prioritizing fairness and justice, we can create a more equitable and just society for all. This requires a commitment to considering multiple perspectives and upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals, including public figures.

The mob-like response from journalists and Amnesty International is a reminder that even in the pursuit of press freedom, we must not trample on the rights of others.

Indeed, Ambassador Waiya’s experience serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of mob reasoning and the importance of upholding fairness and justice in public discourse.

As we move forward, it is essential that we learn from Waiya’s experience and prioritize fairness and balance in public discourse. This requires a commitment to considering multiple perspectives and upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals.

The protection of human rights is essential to creating a just and equitable society. By upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals, including public figures like Waiya, we can create a more just and equitable society for all.

In conclusion, Ambassador Waiya’s experience serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of protecting the rights and privileges of all individuals, including public figures.

The debate surrounding Waiya’s actions is a reminder that the pursuit of press freedom is complex and multifaceted. While it is essential to protect the rights of journalists and writers, it is equally important to uphold the rights and privileges of public figures.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Waiya and the opinionated article highlights the need for a more nuanced and balanced approach to public discourse.

By prioritizing fairness and justice, we can create a more equitable and just society for all. This requires a commitment to considering multiple perspectives and upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals.

As we move forward, it is essential that we prioritize fairness and balance in public discourse. This requires a commitment to considering multiple perspectives and upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals.

The importance of protecting the rights and privileges of public figures like Ambassador Waiya cannot be overstated.

By upholding the rights and privileges of all individuals, including public figures, we can create a more just and equitable society for all.

In the end, Ambassador Waiya’s experience serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of prioritizing fairness and balance in public discourse, and it has indeed brought to fore how not to deployed mob reasoning on issues of human rights

Al Amin Ubandoma, a Public Affairs Analyst writes from Lagos.

#
Continue Reading

Opinion

Journalists: The Unseen Heroes of Development, Kano Desires Collaboration Not Confrontation

Published

on

 

BY AMINU BALA

By convention and practice, media houses and journalists have the right to express their opinions under guided principles, ethical compliance, and the rule of law.

The recent allegations surrounding the arrest and detention of two journalists in Kano State have sparked intense debate. However, it’s essential to set the record straight: the duo were only invited for questioning, not arrested or detained, for allegedly attacking the personality of Comrade Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, Kano State Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs in one online media platform, Kano Times titled “Dear Governor Abba Kabir, .Beware of Waiya”.

Some critics argue that the police’s invitation for questioning was improper. Amnesty International, in particular as a reputable organization, appears to have jumped to conclusions without proper due diligence by condemning the police invitation, describing it as a threat to free press.

It’s crucial to verify facts before making conclusions, and Amnesty should ensure they present accurate information to maintain their credibility. It was clear that Amnesty didn’t balance findings as one of the guided principles of journalism. According to Amnesty, it heard the tidings break from the grapevine.

To this extent, Amnesty, as a reputable organization, failed to verify information through official channels, thereby perpetuating misinformation and undermining its reputation. This lack of due diligence raises questions about Amnesty International’s commitment to accuracy and fairness. It’s crucial to verify facts before making conclusions, and Amnesty should ensure they present accurate information to maintain their credibility.

#

In this case, Amnesty International’s hasty condemnation of the police invitation of the two suspects was premature and unwarranted. By failing to engage with an official source, as it appears, its impromptu action spurs unnecessary tension.

It is common knowledge that the Kano State Government has no issues with media houses or journalists. Instead, it recognises the critical role journalists play in promoting development and accountability as encapsulated in the 1999 Constitution as amended, which guarantees Press Freedom in Section 39 (1) and (2).Additionally, Section 22 guarantees the freedom of the press.

Against the odd, Amnesty must take steps to address its methodology and credibility concerns. This includes engaging with official sources, verifying information through multiple channels, and avoiding hasty conclusions and condemnation. Only by so doing can the organization regain its credibility as impartial human rights advocate.

The State government, in particular, acknowledges journalists as major stakeholders, bedrocks, and pillars of democracy and is committed to transparency and accountability. Collaboration, not confrontation, is the way forward. By working together, the government and journalists can provide essential information to the public, addressing the “oils and waters” of development challenges.

Naturally, every human on the surface of the earth might have or develop some glaring err, so Waiya is not an exception. It’s only God the Supreme that doesn’t err, As a vibrant human rights advocate, activist, and media acquaintance, Waiya possesses the enigmatic leadership skills to transform the journalism profession With his exceptional stamina, he is poised to re-energize and revitalize the industry and take it to new heights. As a seasoned media acquaintance and advocate, Waiya brings a unique blend of expertise, passion, and commitment to bear on his job. His leadership is a beacon of hope for a more robust, responsible, and respected journalism profession in Kano State.

As Waiya navigates the complexities of his new role, he should remain steadfast in his dedication to the principles of journalism, human rights, and democracy. His unwavering commitment to the truth, coupled with his exceptional leadership skills, makes him an exemplary figure in the journalism profession. With Waiya at the helm, the future of journalism in Kano State looks brighter than ever.

In conclusion, to cut the story short, the K
It is instructive to note that the Kano State Government values the role of journalists in promoting development and accountability. With guided principles and a commitment to transparency, the government is eager to collaborate with media houses and journalists to drive progress in Kano State.

Aminu writes from Kano

Continue Reading

Trending