By Hardball
Rebuttals ordinarily are a legitimately exercised right to present ‘alternative facts’ to presumed statements of facts that pre-existed. Now, the administration in Ebonyi State has taken this practice to a level of obfuscation that should pose behavioural scientists a rich subject of study.
The administration last week denied widely reported pronouncement by Governor David Umahi that he was banning two journalists “for life” from state functions, after they were briefly arrested by security agents at his suspected instance over reports the administration found offensive. Chijioke Agwu of Sun newspapers was nabbed on 19th April over his report on Lassa fever in the state, while Peter Okutu of Vanguard was arrested on 21st April for reporting military invasion of a community in Ohaukwu council area of Ebonyi.
In an address aired live on the state’s broadcast stations on Wednesday, 22nd April, Governor Umahi also said the safety of the two journalists could no longer be guaranteed in the state. “If you think you have the pen, we have the koboko (horsewhip),” he threatened.
It was curious enough the governor overreached by banning the affected journalists ‘for life’ when he has an expiry date in government. Besides, industry stakeholders have noted there is something called ‘Right of Reply’ that his administration could exercise, and which concerned media would be obliged by industry code to publish. Worse case, he could resort to the courts for redress; only he had dismissed that option in his tirade, saying, “Let’s leave the court alone.”
Curious got more curious when the administration repudiated audio and video clips of the governor’s broadcast on social media, saying they were ‘doctored.’ A statement by his media aide, Francis Nwaze, alleged the recordings were aimed at misleading the public. That statement, however, reaffirmed the government’s grouse that “there is no case of confirmed death caused by Lassa fever recently in Ebonyi, neither was there any killing by the Nigerian military last weekend in the state.”
Did the media aide mean Mr. Governor’s broadcast never occurred, or that his words in that broadcast were at variance with what was reported? He did not make bold to say. He only alleged “a delicate attempt to smear the hard-earned reputation and good relationship of the governor with the media.” What obfuscation! It’s either the governor spoke or he didn’t. Possible ‘doctoring’ of clips couldn’t make much difference to substance.
The governor had also upbraided the leadership of the local chapter of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, threatening to “seize their allowances for two months because they have failed to discipline their members.” That is an area we as industry practitioners must introspect: how ethical is this kind of relationship, and how helpful for press freedom? He who pays the piper will always seek to call the tune.
Leave a Reply