We had an interesting discussion in afternoon conference today; how should we report alleged assassination attempts on major political figures. What are the ground rules for coverage?
On the face of it this shouldn't be an issue. A politician's life is threatened, its news.
But this is Nigeria, and things may not always be as they seem.
Political assassination is almost a monthly occurrence. But it’s possible that what they claimed to have happened might not be all they say it is. With armed robbery such a high level, there is an explanation that doesn’t involve politics. In extreme cases, it can’t be ruled out that the report is entirely false.
But two weeks ago Funsho Williams, the People's Democratic Party aspirant in the Lagos State primary was brutally murdered in his home. It seems his assassins came in through a hole in the roof. Two of his four-man police guard did not report for work that day, which didn’t stop the national police spokesman saying Williams was “adequately guarded”. Presumably right up until the point he was murdered…
Funsho never had a chance. He was hog-tied, strangled and stabbed by his killers. In the days after the killing every political figure in Nigeria came to his house and tramped through the crime scene to commiserate with his family. People have seen this as being the first political assassination of the “election season”, and are beginning to fear the worst for the elections. More political violence may be on the way.
But there are other cases that are not so clear cut.
Emmanuel got a call from a public relations officer of an Advance Congress of Democrats party chief. There’s been an attempt on his life, and a telephone threat of another. The only evidence of it is the man’s own word, not in a crime report, but a petition to the Inspector General.
During the Third Term business in April, the head of the constitutional review committee, Ibrahim Mantu claimed his house was bombed by people trying to assassinate him to prevent any amendment being made to the constitution that would allow Obasanjo to run again.
The editor Azeez says: “Let’s not do the politician’s work for them! If there is no evidence then we are not obliged to report anything they say”.
And he’s got a point. In general the press just reports blindly what the big men say, as if its fact, without checking or balancing. There’s a reason for this, in some cases the big man has paid for it to be so. Checking and balancing can be hard in a place with such poor communications systems. The big men also like to insulate themselves from the local press entirely, making accusations difficult to square. In a place where reliable information is so difficult to come by, and all the players have an angle they are pursuing, its difficult to know what is fact with any degree of confidence.
Emmanuel remained confused: “But what do we do? Tell them it’s not news? How can we get to the truth unless we absolutely witness it? It’s unlikely!”
Azeez: “We are not obliged to do their work. Let them go to the police first, show us some evidence.”
Two weeks ago the ACD chief claimed in a press release he was attacked on an Enugu road, stripped naked, beaten and his car stolen. All this, his publicist said, was within yards of a police roadblock. The police did nothing, which led them to claim it was a politically motivated hit, not just a simple armed robbery.
But even if he did report it to the police, it’s not guaranteed that the police would investigate it, or even admit to receiving the report. Most of the times we go to the police publicity officer he says he knows nothing about it.
We couldn’t confirm the attack on the ACD chief with the police, and the publicist didn’t give us details of exactly where the attack took place. We don’t have the resources to go to Enugu and check it out, but we published it. So what we’re left with is no way of really verifying attacks on politicians -at least within the timeframe of our deadlines- if they don’t offer up some physical evidence of their own, like a bullet-ridden car. Or unless they die.
Why would anyone falsely claim to have been attacked? I suppose falsely claiming to be attacked may be a way for the under-fire politician to put pressure back on his enemies. He may benefit from the publicity. It may give credence to claims he might have of a wider conspiracy against him, helping to explain the barrage of petitions from opponents claiming he is corrupt. It paints him as the victim, like most assumed was the case with the Ibrahim Mantu bomb attack.
As a gambit, I’m not convinced it’s a very smart one when the stakes are so high.
I think the answer for us must be that we provide the information, with the caveat saying none of it could be verified. Then we have to pursue the case for more evidence. This isn't easy.