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.

Advert

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

Arewa Media Summit:A Political Jamboree-Tijjani Sarki 

Published

on

 

By Tijjani Sarki

The recently concluded Arewa Media Summit in Kano was presented as a platform to redefine the role of the media in Northern Nigeria. From my observation, however, it fell short of the expectations of a summit and looked more like a political jomboree than a strategic forum for regional renewal.

A summit that claims to speak for Arewa should reflect the diversity of the region’s media ecosystem by bringing together journalists, editors, broadcasters, communication strategists, digital influencers, academics, policymakers and development partners. My observation is that many of these critical voices were either missing or insufficiently represented, giving the event the appearance of a gathering of familiar faces rather than the North’s broad media constituency.

Another observation is that no communiqué or clear resolutions emerged in the public domain after the event. If a summit ends without publicly outlining its decisions, implementation framework or policy direction, it becomes difficult to measure its value beyond the speeches and photographs.

Advert

I also observed concerns that the Honourable Commissioners of Information and Internal Affairs from the Northern states, particularly Kano State’s Comrade Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya the host state, were not visibly integrated into the programme. If that perception is accurate, it represents a missed opportunity to build a truly inclusive regional media agenda.

Politically, this was also a missed opportunity to provide an inclusive platform for constructive engagement on national issues, including the policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. Genuine dialogue requires broad participation, not selective representation.

Arewa deserves a media summit defined by vision, inclusiveness, measurable outcomes and institutional credibility, not by optics alone. Until those elements become evident, many will continue to question whether the gathering advanced the North’s aspirations or merely added another event to the calendar.

Tijjani Sarki
Good Governance Advocate and Public Policy Analyst
Can be reach via responsivecitizensinitiative@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

Allocations Triple, Yet Hardship Deepens Across Nigeria

Published

on

 

Despite a dramatic increase in federal allocations to states and local governments in recent years, millions of Nigerians continue to grapple with worsening poverty, inflation and a declining standard of living.

Across markets, offices, motor parks and homes, many citizens say the rising government revenues have done little to improve their daily realities. While states now receive significantly higher allocations through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), families are struggling to afford food, transportation, housing and healthcare.

The growing concern has raised questions about how public funds are being managed and whether the benefits of economic reforms are reaching ordinary Nigerians.

The Rise In FAAC Allocations

Over the years, allocations from the Federation Account have steadily increased. In May 2022, FAAC shared N680.78 billion among the three tiers of government, representing a 6.94 per cent increase over the previous month. By July 2022, the amount had risen to N954.1 billion, while N990.19 billion was shared in December 2022.

The trend continued after the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira in May 2023. According to available data, the 36 states collectively received N3.35 trillion in 2022. By 2025, that figure had increased to N8.19 trillion, nearly tripling within three years.

Several states recorded substantial increases:

– Kano State: N99.31 billion in 2022 to N279.69 billion in 2025-

– Lagos State: N161.29 billion to N531.51 billion

– Taraba State: N51.74 billion to N157.56 billion

– Zamfara State: N56.62 billion to N167.20 billion

– Kogi State: N60.78 billion to N176.24 billion

– Akwa Ibom State: N314.18 billion to N497.98 billion

In March 2026 alone, FAAC distributed N2.04 trillion among the federal, state and local governments, reflecting a further increase in government revenue.

Analysts attribute the growth to tax reforms, improved revenue collection by agencies such as the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), higher crude oil earnings and policy changes directing more revenue into the Federation Account.

A Different Reality for Nigerians

While government revenues continue to rise, many Nigerians say their living conditions are moving in the opposite direction.

In Kano, civil servant Musa Abdullahi says his monthly salary can no longer sustain his family.

“Food prices have doubled. We hear that allocations are increasing, but we are not seeing the impact in our daily lives,” he said.

Advert

For traders, the story is much the same. Zainab Sani, a petty trader, said customers now buy less because household incomes have been stretched beyond their limits.

In Lagos, many families have been forced to make difficult adjustments. Dayo Oluwa, a resident, explained that items such as meat and fish have become luxury goods in many homes.

“Before, N2,000 could cook a decent pot of stew. Today, even N5,000 may not be enough,” she said.

Workers say transportation costs have also become unbearable. Some civil servants now limit their movement or seek additional jobs just to meet their basic needs.

In Kogi State, several workers have reportedly taken up commercial transportation, farming and small-scale businesses to supplement their incomes. Similar stories have emerged from Taraba, Zamfara and Akwa Ibom states, where residents describe an economy that continues to squeeze the average citizen.

Poverty Amid Rising Revenue

The contradiction between increasing government revenue and growing hardship has become one of Nigeria’s most pressing economic concerns.

According to the World Bank, about 140 million Nigerians were living in poverty by 2025, representing approximately 63 per cent of the population. Earlier reports by the National Bureau of Statistics also showed that millions of Nigerians lacked adequate access to food, healthcare and decent housing.

Economic experts argue that while subsidy removal boosted government earnings, inflation and currency depreciation have significantly weakened the purchasing power of citizens.

As prices continue to rise, salary increases and government interventions have struggled to keep pace with the cost of living.

The Accountability Question

The increase in allocations has also renewed calls for transparency and accountability.

Experts insist that the issue is no longer about whether governments have enough money, but whether those resources are being effectively utilised.

Development economists have repeatedly argued that increased revenue should result in better roads, improved healthcare services, stronger educational systems, job creation and targeted support for vulnerable populations.

Civil society groups have also urged citizens to take a greater interest in how public funds are spent. They argue that taxpayers have a right to know how government revenues are allocated and utilised.

The editorial position expressed by several policy analysts is clear: rising allocations should not merely exist as figures on paper; they should translate into measurable improvements in people’s lives.

Beyond the Numbers

The growing FAAC allocations represent a positive development for Nigeria’s public finances. They demonstrate that revenue generation has improved and that the country is gradually diversifying beyond its traditional dependence on oil earnings.

However, for millions of Nigerians struggling to afford daily necessities, the true measure of success is not how much money enters government accounts, but how effectively those funds improve the quality of life of citizens.

As governments continue to receive larger allocations, expectations will continue to rise. Nigerians increasingly want evidence that public resources are being invested in meaningful development, economic opportunities and social welfare.

Until the benefits of rising revenues are reflected in households, communities and businesses across the country, many citizens will continue to ask the same question: if government allocations are increasing, why is life becoming more difficult?

Written By: Mfe Mesuur Perpetual (Abuja),
200 level student of Development and strategic communication, University of Abuja.

Continue Reading

Opinion

What Saheeba Taught Me About Waiting for Love

Published

on

 

By Auwal Sani

Stories have a curious way of finding the places we pretend no longer exist. A few nights ago, I settled in to watch Saheeba, the ongoing Hausa mini series that has quietly earned a place in the hearts of many viewers. I expected to follow the lives of its characters. Instead, somewhere between the pauses, the longing, and the things left unsaid, I found myself confronting a story I have been carrying since 2018. By the time the episode ended, I was no longer thinking about the people on my screen. I was thinking about the quiet spaces within me.

I have always loved love stories. Not because they always end happily, as many of them do not, but because they reveal something profound about the human heart. It is perhaps the only part of us that refuses to become entirely logical. It believes after disappointment, hopes after silence, and waits even when waiting appears unreasonable. Love stories remind us that the heart possesses a resilience that the mind often struggles to understand.

There is a kind of loneliness that rarely announces itself. It is not the loneliness of being surrounded by no one. Rather, it is the loneliness of having family, friends, meaningful work, and personal achievements, yet still sensing that one important space remains unoccupied. It quietly accompanies you to weddings, birthdays, and ordinary evenings. It reminds you that some places within us cannot be filled by ambition, success, or the passage of time.

That has been my reality since 2018.

People often say that time heals all wounds. I have come to believe otherwise. Time, by itself, does not heal. It simply teaches us how to carry what has not healed. Over the years, I have questioned myself more than I have questioned fate. Perhaps my expectations of love are unrealistic. Perhaps I desire too much in a generation that seems increasingly comfortable with temporary connections and convenient relationships. Or perhaps I simply long for a kind of love that still believes commitment is worth choosing every single day.

Advert

What I know with certainty is that love has always been my greatest vulnerability. I have never learned the mathematics of guarded affection. I do not know how to give ten percent when my heart insists on giving everything. It has always seemed ironic to me that we encourage people to pursue their dreams without reservation, yet advise them to ration kindness, vulnerability, and love. More than once, I have discovered that not every heart knows what to do with genuine affection. Some admire it, some misunderstand it, and others receive it without ever intending to give anything in return.

Perhaps that is why love remains such a mystery. We write poems about it, compose songs because of it, and build entire futures around the hope of finding it. Yet no definition has ever been large enough to contain all that it is. Those who understand love most deeply are not always those who found it. Sometimes, they are those who have lived through its absence. They know what it means to smile while carrying invisible disappointments, and they understand that loneliness is not merely the absence of people, but the absence of the one person with whom silence would have been enough.

Watching Saheeba reminded me that love is rarely sustained by grand declarations or dramatic sacrifices alone. More often, it survives through patience, consistency, understanding, and the quiet decision to keep choosing someone even after the excitement has faded. The series is still unfolding, and perhaps that is why it resonates so deeply with me. Like life itself, its ending has not yet been written. Every episode quietly reminds us that uncertainty is part of every meaningful journey.

The human heart has an astonishing ability to survive what should have broken it. It remembers tenderness after betrayal, imagines tomorrow after years of unanswered prayers, and continues to believe long after experience suggests it should stop. There was a time when I considered hardening my heart because it seemed safer. After all, disappointment cannot wound a heart that no longer expects anything. But I eventually realised that the opposite of heartbreak is not peace. It is indifference. And indifference is far more frightening because it asks us to stop feeling altogether. I would rather carry hope than become indifferent.

Perhaps that is the greatest lesson Saheeba has offered me. Not that love is guaranteed, or that every story reaches the ending we imagine, but that there is quiet courage in remaining emotionally available despite life’s disappointments. To continue believing after years of waiting is its own form of resilience. Hope is not weakness. It is evidence that the heart has refused to surrender.

So I still love love stories. Not because they promise happy endings, but because they remind me that every ending is also the possibility of another beginning. They remind me that hope is never foolish, and that the heart’s willingness to believe again is one of the quiet miracles of being human.

Perhaps the greatest miracle is not finding love. Perhaps it is refusing to let disappointment convince us that love is no longer worth finding. And maybe, just maybe, the most beautiful chapter of my own story has not been written yet.

Auwal Sani is a Lecturer in the Department of Development and Strategic Communication, University of Abuja. He writes on communication, society, culture, and the quiet experiences that shape everyday life.

Continue Reading

Trending