Category: Editorial

• Full disclosure needed on award of contract to rehabilitate the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway

When, on November 19, 2012 the Federal Government revoked its contract of reconstructing the dilapidated Lagos-Ibadan Expressway with Bi-Courtney Highways Services Limited , many Nigerians heaved a sigh of relief. The government said it was compelled to take the step because the concessionaire had serially breached terms of the contract and failed to perform. Carnage on the old highway was another reason given for terminating the agreement.

Minister of Works, Mr. Mike Onolememen, who announced the government’s decision, also explained that two construction giants, Julius Berger and RCC, had been picked for the task of immediately rehabilitating the ever-busy road. Two weeks later, the minister was on hand again to announce that the two companies had been given a deadline of eight weeks to make the road motorable and stop avoidable deaths caused by the bad portions.

It has since been observed that the companies have been at work. It is however disturbing that the government has failed to be transparent in awarding the contract. Nigerians deserve to know what the rehabilitation is costing taxpayers. It is unacceptable that provisions of the law would be wilfully breached by elected officials of state. The Public Procurement Act is clear on the procedure for award of major contracts.

At the time of award of the concession of the road to Bi-Courtney in May 2009, the public was told that it would cost the concessionaire N89 billion to meet the specifications. Now that emergency work has been commissioned, we deserve to know the terms – the cost, scope and the fine details. The point must be made that, even for good causes, public fund must be judiciously expended.

It is even more intriguing that the plan to build up the capacity of the road to carry the heavy traffic it bears has been broken into two. The first phase, expected to be concluded by the end of this month, is just for rehabilitation. Thereafter, the minister has disclosed that the more desired expansion of scope and modernisation would be contracted.

Why didn’t the Federal Government go the whole hog at once? After terminating the contract with Bi-Courtney, the process of ensuring that road users do not have to wait unduly ought to have been activated at once by getting the project advertised, bids invited and the contract awarded in record time without infringing on the law. The contractors could then have been mandated to ensure a rehabilitation to proceed with reconstruction and remodelling.

The government owes the people a duty to explain what it plans to do with the road now. Would it be handed another concessionaire on similar terms? Would it be a regular contract to be financed and funded by the Federal Government? How many lanes shall we expect on each side as well as other amenities like rest areas, etc. These are simple decisions that should be made by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) and pushed to the public for input.

If it must be concessioned, the pitfalls that dogged the relationship with Bi-Courtney must be avoided this time. A scrutiny must be carried out to ensure that only firms with requisite experience, interest and financial muscle are brought on board.

Besides, despite the road being federal, it is important to carry along states that are direct stakeholders, that is Lagos, Ogun and Oyo whose people live along the corridor. The point was made early enough by the governors of the Southwest who even opted to take over the task to ease the burden of traffic snarl and the impediment it had constituted for integration.

It is repugnant that the Federal Government is already talking about tolling the road after rehabilitation this month. This does not only constitute policy inconsistency, but amounts as well to exploitation. We see no justification for the return of toll gates that were dismantled at a hefty cost under the Obasanjo administration when reconstruction work is yet to commence.

While the road that links Lagos, the commercial nerve centre of the country, to the West, East and North deserves expeditious attention, the law must be respected and it must be awarded at the most competitive price and to those with the capacity to do a thorough job.

•Boko Haram suspects can still get fair trials under existing law

The scourge of Boko Haram has inflicted dislocations on our country on a number of levels. Some point to its psychological damage, others to the physical and geographic fissures and a few others to the decimation of families. We experience these instances almost daily, showing that the Nigerian government is grasping with futile energy to curb this modern day spasms of savagery. We have witnessed deaths, cries for justices, invocation of pieties of the bigoted type, the distress of families and primordial rages of the ethnic hue.

Those in government have caviled at their inability to use the concept of civic coercion to inspire our locals in the north, especially in the soft underbellies of Borno, Yobe, Kano and Kaduna states, to fish out the culprits. This reflects a disconnect between the official angle and the people who should strengthen the weak areas of the infrastructure of battle against terror.

But one issue that has come to the fore in this fight is how to prosecute those under custody and bring justice according to the tenets of the law. News reports have it that the office of the attorney general cannot proceed with prosecuting them for two reasons. One, the existing laws are too feeble to hand down deserved punishment matching the scale of the injuries they inflicted on society. The second reason is the dilly-dallying of the National Assembly to pass into law the Terrorism Amendment Bill. Consequently, the trials of the detainees are on hold. Also, the National Assembly has not fixed a deadline or a timeline to pass the bill into law.

What is at stake here is the concept of the rule of law and justice. The Jonathan administration’s claim that it does not want to expedite the prosecution of the detainees on the basis of the weak laws now in the books runs counter to the constitution and the principle of the rule of law.

Four persons of the Boko Haram sect are facing trials over deadly bombings of three major landmarks. The United Nations House in Abuja, the Police Headquarters in Abuja and St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State. The detainees are Ali Sanda Umar Konduga ( a.k.a. Usman Alzawahiri), who was jailed for three years in December 2011; Ismail Kwaljima (a.k.a. Abu Summaya); Babagana Mali (a.k.a. Bulama); and Kabiru Sokoto.

Given the savagery of the series of attacks attributed to the sect and the wanton destruction of lives and property, it is easy to fall into the dubious virtue of summary judgments. But we want to warn that this is a nation of laws and not of men. Laws should be applied with a sense of balance and justice.

The failure of the government to prosecute the men should not be thrown at the doorsteps of the National Assemby but at the Federal Ministry of Justice. To use the excuse that the existing laws are too weak as a way to hold the detainees until a law is passed, albeit retroactively, works against all the high ideals of a democratic society. It is a call back to the days of the military when justice was determined before the matters were heard in court.

If the Federal Government wants to try the detainees with new laws, then it has admitted, unfortunately, that it arrested the men illegally. It is basic principle of law and justice that you must arrest a person based on the violation of an existing law.

According to section 36 and subsection 8 of the 1999 Constitution, “No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed.”

This shows that to prosecute the men under laws not yet enacted will create legal hurdles for the search for justice. What the men have committed may not fall under any clear-cut terror act, but what they did still constitute serious contraventions of law in a decent society. What they are alleged to have committed fall within murder, arson and such related felonies that attract, even within existing law, severe penalties comparable to terror. Murder and arson and conspiracy to murder are not little offences.

It is reported that some of the trials of suspects have proceeded under the anti-terrorism clause in the EFCC Act.

It is also unfortunate that the National Assembly should dilate on such a serious matter as enacting a law on terror, a thing that has threatened the fabric of peace in Nigeria for the past few years. One of the reasons for the delay is the inclusion of the office of the National Security Adviser in the bill, an office not recognised in the constitution. Yet, if the lawmakers took the matter with its deserved gravity, they should have convened emergency sessions to put the matter behind us.

The Senate suspended further deliberation of the bill on December 19, 2012, and that means no one can be arraigned on the matter until the law chamber resumes and passes the bill into law.

It is the dilatory attitude of the lawmakers that is forcing the hand of executive branch to desperate anti-democratic impulses.

The Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS) Mr. Ekpeyong Ita, according to a report, complained that some of the suspects have regained freedom because of the weakness of the law. This is unfortunate. We believe it is because of the imaginative failures of the government prosecutors that such men walk free into the streets. With serious laws invoked, these men would still suffer the full consequences of their felonies.

The danger of such laws is that it will enshrine retroactive laws into our legal attitude and make a mockery of the principle of the rule of law. The other danger is that such laws will be called upon in future to punish innocents.

MOHAMMED Abubakar, the Inspector-General of Police, was reported to have warned his officers and men before the Yuletide that no bomb explosion must take place anywhere in the country. The Commissioner of Police in charge of the Anti-Bomb Command, Mr. Folusho Adebanjo put it succinctly: “The IG said he must not hear that any bomb hurt or affected any Nigerian during the Yuletide. And because we are aware of these plans (bomb attacks), we are working extra hard”.

It was apparently in order to show that the IG’s order was carried out that Adebanjo reeled out the number of states where he said his men had detonated explosives so that Nigerians could have peaceful celebrations: “I can tell you that we have detonated more explosives in Kaduna, Kano, Bauchi, Maiduguri and Abuja these past days. We are going to foil more before the New Year and even after. We are committed to ensuring that no lives are lost. I am in touch with all the state commands every hour to achieve this.” In spite of the tight security, we still had bomb explosions in one or two places in the country during the period. Maybe it would have been worse; maybe not. But that is even beside the point.

While we do not doubt Adebanjo’s claims concerning the number of states where the police detonated bombs during the period; our problem however is the lack of details or specifics. We do not think it is enough for security agents to make such claims, they should substantiate them. When, for instance, Mr Adebanjo said explosives were detonated in Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano, Maiduguri and Abuja, where specifically in these places? Which institutions or homes were the targets of the terrorists? Were there any suspects around the areas where the explosives were detonated? It is necessary to indicate these details so as not to make the claims look like tales by the moonlight.

It is the same problem we have with President Goodluck Jonathan’s claim that suspected masterminds of some of the dastardly terror attacks on some installations in the country in the past two years have been arrested. Jonathan said this during the “Naming and Circumcision of Jesus Christ and New Year Service,” held at the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Diocese of Abuja, All Saints’ Church, Zone 5, Wuse, Abuja, Those being held include suspects of terror attacks on the Louis Edet House, Nigeria Police Force Headquarters, United Nations (UN) Building and the St. Theresa’s Catholic Church, Madalla in Niger State.

These are big suspects whose identities ought to be known. We agree that it is impossible to release every detail on security issues. But then, some transparency is needed in view of the public‘s right to know. We are particularly worried because of our experience, especially in the Obasanjo era. The Obasanjo government threatened many times to name and shame the people behind threats to national security in some parts of the country without naming one person in the eight years of that administration.

After the threats, the matters died naturally and were forgotten until we had another crisis situation in our hands. Many of such people are walking the streets free and that it is what is emboldening other people to commit similar atrocities.

What we are saying in effect is that reports are more credible when details are released to the public as much possible. But when the details are shrouded in secrecy, it gives the impression that the government is engaging in a propaganda war, which is not good enough.

For the third time, no African leader qualifies for Mo Ibrahim award

The dearth of inspired leadership on the African continent is becoming more apparent. The pointer to this is the recent verdict of the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, initiated by Sudanese billionaire Mo Ibrahim who set up a foundation for that purpose, The Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The Foundation’s award is deemed to be the world’s most valuable prize, with $5 million cash at stake. Shamefully, no leader from the continent is considered worthy of winning it in 2012. This trend is, sadly, happening for the third time in six years. Ibrahim, chairman and founder of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, put it succinctly: “Since we launched the Prize six years ago, we have had three winners, and three years without.”

The damning conclusion of Mo Ibrahim Foundation Prize Committee says it all when it declared that after reviewing a number of eligible candidates, “… none met the criteria needed to win this award,” that is about excellence in leadership. The $5 million award is usually paid over 10 years with another $200,000 to be paid annually for life to the winner after a decade of winning.

The award is reserved for democratically elected leaders that have demonstrated immeasurable excellence in office. Such leaders are bestowed with the award, having also voluntarily stepped down three years after serving their constitutionally mandated term in office. The previous winners include President Pedro Verona Pires of Cape Verde who was given the award for his “vision in transforming Cape Verde into a model of democracy, stability and increased prosperity;” Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique and Festus Mogae of Botswana. Nelson Mandela was in 2006 made the honorary inaugural Laureate of the award.

We are not surprised that no African leader is considered worthy of winning this coveted award. But the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has shown the world through its report on Index of African Governance (IIAG), why accountability and good governance/leadership have been eluding the continent in an annual study covering 52 out of 54 African nations. The study takes into consideration 88 indicators, including human rights, rule of law, development, personal safety, participation in the political process, infrastructure, welfare, health and education. It is equally sad that the study found four of the continent’s regional powerhouses, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and South Africa, to have been declining in quality of governance since 2006.

Without mincing words, it is difficult to attain excellence and the promotion of democratic ethos in countries where there is no respect for accountability and transparency in governance. In such societies, corruption will loom large, which is why these vices have made getting worthy leaders to win the Mo Ibrahim Foundation Prize more difficult.

What could be wrong with the regional giants of Africa that is making good governance necessary for harnessing their countries’ resources in order to meet the expectations of the citizenry so difficult to achieve? While the giants that should lead the path to the continent’s greatness are declining in responsible governance, it is noteworthy that significant improvements in the rule of law, among others, were being witnessed in former war-torn nations of Liberia and Sierra Leone, Angola and Guinea. Even Rwanda, Mauritius and Zambia have reportedly recorded significant strides in areas such as human development and sustainable economic performance. Also, Tanzania has climbed the IIAG’s rankings over the past six years, making it into the top 10 for the first time.

We are further disturbed that the regional giants that ought to play key roles in setting economic and political agenda on the continent have not been showing inspiring devotion to beneficial governance – despite the vast natural resources at their beck and call. The matter needs urgent intervention. This is especially so that the Transparency International ranking on corruption put Nigeria and Kenya in 143 and 154 positions, respectively, out of 183 nations that were put under the klieg light. South Africa and again Kenya also witnessed serious dip in sustainable economic opportunity.

The continent seems doomed in getting good leaders to steer the African countries out of troubled waters of bad governance. We call on the Board of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation to consider sub-national leaders, including governors, civil society leaders and mayors, among others, as prospective eligible recipients of this important leadership award.

The reason is that a lot of work is going on beneath the frosty layer of presidents and prime ministers. Leaders at such lower levels are challenging the continent with creative ideas, audacious doings and assertions of African dignity that make their peacock superiors dinosaurs of development.

They constitute the bulk of young leaders that could be inspired by such monumental award. Except this is done, it might be difficult to get a winner for the award among leaders of African countries at the current pace of slow and unreasonable governance.

One of the most controversial politicians in his generation passes on

On December 18, Nigeria lost another highly experienced, influential and often controversial politician to the inevitable hands of death. As has become increasingly characteristic of leading members of Nigeria’s political elite, the late Senator Uba Ahmed died in a German Hospital – a reflection of the state of health facilities in the country. The deceased senator was buried on December 24 in his hometown, Kaltungo, Gombe State, where he was born on April 28, 1939.

A product of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Uba Ahmed started out as a trade unionist before assuming national prominence as a key actor on the country’s political terrain over the last three decades. Surely, the country’s post-colonial political history cannot be written without detailing Uba Ahmed’s diverse contributions, even if the consequences of some of his roles on the country’s political development will remain matters of continual debate.

Senator Uba Ahmed was consistent throughout his political career in his commitment to the status quo in Nigeria; an unrepentant establishment politician as well as an active supporter of conservative political forces. He represented the then Bauchi State in the Senate on the platform of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) in the Second Republic. In that capacity, he was easily one of the most vocal and active members of the Senate who was particularly vociferous in defending his party policies and taking on the opposition.

It was thus not surprising that he eventually became the National Secretary of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), which was one of the party’s most important and strategic offices. In the aborted Third Republic, Uba Ahmed retained his fidelity to ideologically conservative parties as a senator on the platform of the government-formed ‘a little to the right’ National Republican Convention (NRC). Under the General Sani Abacha regime, Uba Ahmed served as Minister of Labour and in the current dispensation, he was a member of the National Political Reform Conference set up by the administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in 2005.

At the twilight of his political career, Uba Ahmed’s assessment of the state of the Nigerian polity was dismal. In an interview granted shortly before the 2011 election, he lamented that “…if you look at the Nigerian system, our democracy is highly distorted from the point of view of what democracy is. What we have today is an undisciplined, distorted democracy that is exclusively of the elites, by the elites and for the elites. The ordinary man is not part of this democracy and does not benefit from it. As it is, no effort is being made to restructure it in such a way that it would benefit the poor people”. But can it not be argued that Uba Ahmed’s brand of politics; the kinds of parties and regimes he supported over time brought us to this sorry pass?

Refuting this contention, Uba Ahmed stoutly defended, till the very end, his various positions on Nigerian politics. In contrast to the Second Republic he argued, for instance, “today the political drift, the political platform and the political machine have turned into a money-making machine”. He was equally uncompromising in absolving his generation of blame for the country’s condition, saying “It is the new generation that has brought Nigeria to where we are. It is the new generation that is openly stealing the ballot boxes. It is the new generation that brought about the hardship”.

Uba Ahmed was certainly a man of strong convictions. He apparently did the best he could as he thought fit. The rest is left for history. We condole with his family and pray that he rest in eternal peace.

•The suffering of octogenarian twin sisters shames the absence of a caring society and state

The story of two octogenarian women who live in sqalour and neglect bring up to focus the absence of a comprehensive social security system in modern Nigeria. The women, Ibijoke Apena and Janeth Eruwayo, are twins and live in a dingy home on a backstreet in Lagos. They have children who are grown apparently and comfortably off. Yet they have neglected their mothers and left to pass off the rest of their lives in the misery of old age in a one-room apartment where they eat, sleep, stool and have their bath.

For whatever reasons, the children have neglected their parents, a decent society ought not to see its elderly suffer in such a deep and abject way. They worked in their prime and served the country in their unique ways.

They also succeeded as mothers and wives, even though both are now widows. Ordinarily, the system should support them to the end of their days on earth.

But their story is a testament to the failing of the traditional support system of our communalistic past. Communalism, as a system that nurtured the young and old in the African society for centuries, has gone past its apotheosis a long time ago, and is suffering an acute decline.

The decline is a wretched one as no one looks at it even though we all are complicit in this insidious and pervading evil. The rise of the city and the depredations of capitalism have created the urban mentality with its obsession with individualism.

All the young want to come to the city, and that is where they expect to enjoy the trappings of a new and vigorous prosperity. But the real monster is the city dweller who believes that his or her new status imbues them with a sense of freedom immune to the care of the fellow citizen.

It is in that context that we see the squalor suffered by the aged twin. One of them, Eruwayo, is blind along with other infirmities, according to a report by The Punch newspaper. This woman attended one of the tony schools in our country, Queen’s College, Lagos.

“I still cannot fathom why they abandoned their mothers,” commented a neighbour. “Some of the children I had cause to speak with sometime did not want to hear anything about them. One simply told me: ‘If they die, let us know. We will give them decent burials.’ “

If the family does not care for the aged, it is the duty of the state to step in. We do not have such an arrangement yet for the old.

Thankfully, some states have taken steps to care for the old and children classified as the vulnerable among us. Lagos State offers a commendable programme of welfare in the area of medical care provided freely to senior citizens. Delta State also offers free medical services to its vulnerable citizens. Ekiti State has created the beginnings of a welfare system where the old receive N5,000 a month as stipends. Osun State has a N10,000 stipend to the elderly and an array of programmes for the vulnerable.

The Federal Government has been behind, and in all welfare states in the advanced countries, such responsibilities are pursued from the centre with big legal and financial supports.

If we had such support, the states would only complement. The opposite is the story today.

The real tragedy is our failure to realise that we have actually translated from a communal ethos to a mercantilist ethic, and our attitude to politics and policy should inspire a caring system that will not leave such persons as the suffering twins to the ravages of a lonely old age.

AS THE YEAR begins, the Obama administration and its diplomatic partners are expecting the renewal of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, after a six-month hiatus. But there is scant indication that a breakthrough is in store. The international coalition, composed of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, intends to offer a slightly modified version of the deal Tehran rejected last June, with the faint hope that the pain of economic sanctions might have caused Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to soften. But there is no public sign of that: In fact, Iran has been slow to agree to a new meeting and, according to the New York Times, did not respond to a post-election feeler by the Obama administration on direct, bilateral talks.

The coalition proposal, portrayed as a confidence-building step, would address the most dangerous part of Iran’s program by requiring a freeze in the enrichment of uranium to a level of 20 percent, which is a short step from bomb-grade, and by shutting down the underground facility known as Fordow, where that enrichment takes place. Iran would also be required to ship its current stockpile of medium-enriched uranium out of the country. In return, it would receive certain economic concessions, like spare airplane parts, and perhaps a partial relaxation of some sanctions.

As it made clear in June, however, Iran expects far more from any agreement. It wants the sanctions lifted entirely and for the Security Council to recognize its “right” to enrich uranium, despite multiple resolutions ordering it to cease. Iranian negotiators have also indicated they want to connect a nuclear accord to the civil war in Syria, where Iran is seeking to preserve its place as a privileged strategic ally.

Most of these demands are rightly unacceptable to the Obama administration: Syria’s future relationship with Iran, for example, must be determined by Syrians following the removal of the Assad government, not by an international pact. But the willingness of the Khamenei regime to settle for less may be constrained by an ongoing power struggle between religious conservatives and nationalists, which could come to a head with the presidential election scheduled for June.

At the same time, the United States — and more so Israel — cannot easily wait many more months for a deal. If Iran continues to enrich uranium to 20 percent at its present rate, it may acquire enough to quickly make a bomb by the middle of this year, potentially giving it the “breakout capacity” that both President Obama and the Israeli government have vowed to prevent. Tehran would have crossed that line last fall had it not diverted a large part of its stockpile to fabricate fuel for a research reactor.

The administration can hope that Iran will continue to keep its uranium stockpile below the breakout threshold, or that it will reverse itself and accept some version of the proposed interim deal. But if negotiations remain stalled, Mr. Obama should consider making Iran a comprehensive offer that would permanently restrict its uranium enrichment and provide for intensive international monitoring in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. That would have the advantage of confronting the regime with a stark choice — and making clear whether a diplomatic solution exists.

– Washington Post

The former British envoy should not tell the Nigerian media what the facts about Nigeria are

Baroness Lynda Chalker, former British Minister for Africa, does not live in Nigeria but she speciously believes she knows more about the country than the local media. In her unproven view, more positive things are happening in the country. At the13th Honorary International Investment Council’s (HIIC) London media parley of which she is the co-ordinator, she criticised the Nigerian media for concentrating on negative issues rather than propagating her perceived positive things that abound in the country.

Her rude verbal eruption: “Nigerian media should focus on positive things which are there…Even people who have not been to Nigeria make negative comments about the country. If you ask them how they formed their opinion, they will tell you they picked it from the Nigerian media and Nigerians. The media should get their facts right and highlight positive issues about the country.’’ To her the country has ‘real opportunities.’

Chalker’s offensive remark was complemented by Labaran Maku, Minister of Information’s remark at the parley: “The Nigeria media is so negative about the country. They are not interested in believing the progress being made in the country. They are running the country down…You can’t blame the international media, because they are re-echoing what the local press says about their country.”

The stories about the spate of insecurity in the country, corruption and the poverty level, among others, contrary to Chalker’s unsolicited counsel and Maku’s understandable twinge, are not the creation of the media but a true reflection of the reality on ground. Chalker’s position that the Nigerian media are exaggerating the security situation in the country is nothing but sheer balderdash.

The developed countries, especially the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom in recent times, are routinely known for advising their citizens not to travel to some parts of the country and even to Nigeria in general. Even, the admonitions given to the Nigerian government by the US in the past, and reported in the media, on plans by some unscrupulous elements to unleash mayhem on her had come to pass. At the moment, there is a widely reported subsisting advisory warning by the US government to her citizens wishing to travel to Nigeria on the alarming insecurity situation in the country. Were those admonitions too the creation of the media in the country?

Despite Chalker’s contemptuous buck-passing, it is on record that the country’s media has been quite reasonable and responsive in its reportage, whether in the past or the present, of unfolding events in the land. Two foreign experts, a British and an Italian, were some time ago seized by Boko Haram for months and killed when their hideout got busted in Sokoto, by the combined team of security operatives and the military. Several other foreigners had been killed while public buildings and churches are still being bombed by insurgents whose intractable activities the current administration seems incapable of tackling. Furthermore, top government officials, past and present, have fallen victims of the nefarious acts of Boko Haram and kidnappers across the country. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s mum was recently rescued from the kidnappers’ den. Could these acts be the creation of the Nigerian media?

Chalker and her cohorts would need to wake up from their deep slumber and realise that the media merely report occurrences in the nation as they unfold. Perhaps, it is high time outsiders, whether countries or nationals, were warned against making careless statements about an institution like the nation’s media. No rash comments against the nation’s media would make them shirk away from their important responsibility of accurate and fair reportage of news.