NAME

OLOWOPOROKU MUYIWA TOPE

LEVEL

500 (PART TIME)

MATRIC NUMBER

060912014

DEPARTMENT

MASS COMMUNICATION

COURSE TITLE / CODE

MASS MEDIA LAW (MAS 404)

LECTURER

OLADEJO AZEEZ ESQ.

QUESTION

Examine government – media relation in Nigeria

 ABSTRACT

This work sought to highlight the relationship that existed between the government and the press

before and since independence, focusing on the 11 regimes in the political history of Nigeria;

one under the colonial government, seven of which was under the military and five in a

democratic setting with elected leaders. It thus examines the relationship that exist between the

press and each regimes in terms of a) Press laws enacted; b)degree of Press Freedom;

c)censorship of the press; d) the use of state security machinery to harass, intimidate the

pressmen. In all, we discover that Nigerian governments since independence, especially the

military, are hostile to the press whose “weapons no more lethal than their pens, recorder or

laptops.”
INTRODUCTION

Nation building is a continuous process. There is, therefore, a need for a symbiotic relationship
between the press and the government in order to move forward.

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd American President once said, “were it left to me to decide whether we
shall have a government without the press or the press without newspaper, I shall not hesitate a
moment to choose the latter.” Jefferson and other statesmen such as Adams, Franklin, Benjamin
Harris, John Campbell and other writers like Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams used the press as a
political weapon until America became a free nation in 1776. Because of the significance of the
press to the emancipation of American nation, the press became the first beneficiary of the
amendments carried out on the nation’s constitution in 1791. The first amendment states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This constitutional
provision holds the key to progress, development and stability of democratic institutions upon
which “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of the nation rest. This constitutional provision
allowed for a formal relationship between the government and the press in the United States, and
then becomes a reference point to other nations around the globe.

The Nigerian media, just like their American counterparts, also fought (during the colonial era)
for the independence of the Nigerian state. Nationalists like Herbert Macaulay, Dr. Nnamdi
Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Ernest Ikoli, just to mention a few, used the media to
assiduously fight the obnoxious regimes. Between 1903 and 1960, the colonial government
enacted various laws to checkmate and control the activities of the press, the only viable weapon
in the hands of the nationalists to expose and sensitize the Nigerian publics to the evil of
colonialism.

The nationalists cum pressmen won independence for Nigeria in 1960. And since the victims of
colonial oppressions have come into power, Nigerians, especially journalists expected that all the
draconian laws used by the colonial masters to suppress the press would quickly be expunged.
Unfortunately, the reverse was the case, and up till this day these laws remain in our statute book
– dreary weapons of a repressive government against the members of the Fourth Estate of the
Realm.
Okoye (2003) suggests that, “the relationship between government and the mass media is of
utmost importance in any given society. A polity where the government does not allow the press
enough freedom to perform its traditional role of watchdog will continue to pay the price in
terms of having bad government, lack of development, stagnation and stunted growth of the
democratic culture.”

Experts have diverse views as to what kind of relationship should exist between government and
the press. Ismail Babatunde Jose, one of Nigeria’s best surviving newspaperman, clearly
suggested that there should not be a master-servant relationship, but a partnership.

Nwosu(1988:175) says that the level of the relationship may be related to the country’s level of
development, but then recommends that it should be in “a continual state of improvement of
progressive development”, for meaningful progress to be made. He added that the government –
press relations in Nigeria continues to change from regime to regime.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE MEDIA

Historically, the state, visualized as a territory, was personified by a strong ruler (a king, for
instance) who organized a court of advisers and handed down legislations in form of decrees.
The legislature metamorphosed from a body of advisers as evidence of growing confidence and
trust. In no particular order, and depending on each experiment, the legislature, the executive and
the judiciary emerged. The mass media, as a social institution, had a desultory birth, appearing as
an independent enterprise and there as a tool for the ruling class. In time, independent printers
emerged, initially under the thumb of the royal establishment. There was never a carved-out
position for the mass media in governance until after the American Revolution.

Ancient newspapers, or what were so treated, had no independent existence from the people at
the helm. We are reminded of the first Roman newspaper (under Julius Caesar) the Acta Diurna,
which was meant to keep an eye on the Senate by recording for publication the wheelings and
dealings of the senators as a precursor to the British Hansard.

No power elite sincerely welcomed or welcome the news media. Caesar, as a dictator, posed the
Diurna on the Roman Senate as a scrutinizing agent. His successors in the royal kingdoms of
Europe controlled what was published. Some there and elsewhere even celebrated the absence of
the media in their power bases. We are told of the governor of Virginia, one of the original 13
British colonies in North America, thanked God that there was no printing in his colony and
hoped there won’t be any for the next 100 years. His point was that printing spreads heresy and
corrupted morals.The emergence of modern politics made the governor’s wish unreasonable and
untenable.

A polity must be guided and controlled, that calls for an effective government; its affairs must be
debated and disputed that calls for a legislature; its contending forces will need arbitration and a
platform for it, that calls for a judiciary. The masses and the three branches now identified must
be aware of the goings-on in and around a given state; that calls for effective news gathering and
dissemination. This had been the real politick even before the era of formal constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NIGERIAN PRESS

Both the government and the media derive the powers and scope of operations from the statute
book (The Nigerian Constitution). But more often than none, the relationship between the
government and the media has been that of cat and mouse. The Nigerian constitution has not
even allowed for a “jolly-going” relationship.

For instance, Sec. 22 of Chapter 2 of the 1999 constitution provides that, “the press, radio,
television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the
fundamental objectives contained in this chapter, and uphold the accountability and
responsibility of the government to the people.” Like any other wishy-washy provision, it has no
clause for enforcement and no criteria for measuring conformity. Then out of necessity, or by a
process of elimination, we have come to read the section to mean holding members of the
identified estates (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) to the responsibility and accountability
to their oath. In English, to uphold means to either maintain or provide moral support. How do
the media now do either?

Since the section does no harm to the mass media, we move to section 39 which does some
structural good for the mass media. It provides for press freedom in 54 words. “Every person
shall be entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold opinion and to receive and
impart ideas or information without interference.” Altogether the section has 54 words to guide
seekers of freedom in pursuit of the constitutional expectations under section 22 and the general
duties as fourth estate denizens.

With this great task assigned the media by the constitution, the relationship between the
government and the members of the fourth estate of the realm is spelt out. It means the press
should go ahead and expose corrupt practices, election rigging, bribery, nepotism and such vices
in the government, political, corporate and religious circle; we do not expect government
officials to then see the media as friends or partners. The press is a watchdog, according to the
task assigned it by the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.
Government needs the press for its survival because of its many, but invaluable roles, of watch
dog, agenda setting, and transmission of cultural values into the society. The press, however,
cannot perform these roles in the absence of constitutionally guaranteed freedom. I therefore
leave this section with Francis Beacon’s warning: “Words are like leaves. Where they most
abound we cannot find the fruit of the truth beneath.”

GOVERNMENT-MEDIA RELATIONS IN THE COLONIAL ERA

It was indeed during the 1900s that the evil seed of discord between the government and media
was sown and nurtured. That was the era of the world wide movement for the emancipation of
the black race and restoration of the dignity of the black man in Africa and in diaspora. In
Nigeria, courageous journalists like Horatio Jackson and Herbert Macaulay, among others, fired
by the black emancipation gospel of Marcus Garvey, B.W. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, Dr.
Blyden and Ayikwe Aggrey, used the newspapers at their disposal to echo the clarion call for
freedon, to the discomfiture of the white colonialists. In an attempt to gag the press therefore, the
colonialists enacted numerous unpopular press laws. The first anti-press law was the Newspaper
Ordinance of 1903. The most obnoxious was “An Ordinance to Make Provision for the
Punishment of Seditious Offences Ordinance” enacted on 22nd of September, 1909. This assumed
the notoriety of taproot of the bad press laws. The Seditious Ordinance was later revised in 1919,
1942 and 1949. This law saw to the jailing of many fearless nationalist journalists including
Herbert Macaulay himself, and in later years, A.Y.S. Tinubu, Anthony Enahoro, Smart Ebi,
increase Coker, and many more.

It was the harsh treatment meted to journalists at that time that led to the formation of the
Nigerian Press Association, with the aim “to safeguard the interest of the local press”. In his
reflection years later, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (1978) accused the Colonial Freeman, McGregor,
Glover, Egerton, and Lugard as the colonial masters who gave the Nigerian press hell.
GOVERNMENT-MEDIA RELATIONS IN THE FIRST REPUBLIC (1960 – 1966)

The post independence government headed by Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa has often been
criticized for not repealing the obnoxious press laws which were used by the colonialists against
the nationalist pressmen. Instead of repealing such laws, the first indigenous government went
ahead to promulgate more laws aimed at curtailing the freedom of the press. These include
Seditious meeting Act No. 48 of 1961, the Defamation Act No. 66 of 1961, the Official Secrets
Acts of 1962, the Defamation Amendment Act No. 1 of 1963 and the Newspaper Amendment
Act of 1964.

It has been said that with these infamous legal enactments at the early days of nationhood,
Nigerian press was put on tight rope from 1962 to the day of the first military coup. It was during
this period that we saw the arrest, detention, trial and imprisonment of late Chief Obafemi
Awolowo.

The republican government can also be credited in that although these obnoxious were enacted
and existed in our statute book, they were rarely enforced. Even in cases where they were
enforced, it was not with the same brutality as the colonial government clamped down on the
nationalists.

This era was marked with series of civil unrest (especially in the western region) and the media
was extremely partisan in that they took sides with political parties and groups that sponsored
them.

GOVERNMENT – MEDIA RELATIONS UNDER THE MILITARY FROM (1966-1979)

The government of Major General Aguiyi Ironsi, though brief, witnessed some improvements in
the government-media relations. For instance, the government lifted the bans which several
Regional governments placed on the circulation of certain newspapers. Aguiyi Ironsi’s regime
lasted for six months before he was killed, thus paving way for the emergence of Lt. Colonel
Yakubu Gowon, who ruled for nine years (1966-1975) as a military head of state.
The media did not fare better under Gowon since he came into power through force. The media,
especially the newspaper and magazine suffered so much under General Gowon’s
administration. In 1967, Gowon’ administration enacted the Newspaper Prohibition of
Circulation Act which some overzealous state governors misused by prohibiting newspapers
circulation within their state. In that same year, Colonel (now Rtd. General) Adeyinka Adebayo
of the Western State prohibited the circulation of Morning Post and Imole Owuro newspapers in
the state. These prohibition orders unfortunately created a floodgate of ban on “enemy
newspapers”, while journalists were subjected to physical, emotional and mental torture by the
government through several security agents. It was gathered that many newspaper houses and
journalists suffered under the military rulership of General Yakubu Gowon. Duyile (1987) says
“there were many editors and news reporters in and out of police custody between 1966 and
1980 no matter how brief their stay with the police” such journalists included Ayo Adedun,
Sketch Editor and his deputy, Tunji Oseni; Ajibade Thomas, Daily Express Editor; Edward
Aderinokun, Daily Express; Theo Ola, Daily Times, for publishing an article title “Show of
Power over Ibadan Polytechnics.”

Big names in Nigerian journalism were not left out in the unholy maltreatment; they include
Alhaji Babatunde Jose, first Nigerian Managing Director of Daily Times; Aremu Alabi, Alhaji
Lateef Jakande. These were regularly visitors at various police stations.

It was even during Gowon’s regime that we had one of the most celebrated government-media
cases in Nigeria - the Minere Amakiri Case. Amakiri, the chief correspondent of the Nigerian
Observer, the Mid-west Government-owned newspaper was accused of writing a news story
titled “Rivers State Teachers on War Path” published on the birthday of Alfred Diete Spiff, the
Governor of Rivers State. The Governor’s aid-de-camp (ADC) got Amakiri thoroughly beaten
up and his head shaved with broken bottle.

This singular uncivil act exhibited by one of Gowon’s lieutenants remains a pointer to the fact
that the media did not enjoy freedom under his regime.
Murtala / Obasanjo Regime (1975-1979)

On July 29, 1975, Gowon’s regime came to an end in a palace coup, where late General Murtala
Mohammed ousted him; this gave birth to another brand of government-media discordant
relations. Murtala started with the take-over 60 percent shares of Daily Times of Nigeria, the
oldest and widest circulated newspaper). Following this, the Murtala government promulgated
decree 101 to legitimize its action. Six months later, General Murtala Mohammed was killed in
another bloody aborted military coup led by Colonel Bukar Sukar Dimka on February 13, 1976.
Murtala’s second in command, Lt. Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo assumed the mantle of leadership
with the promise to implement the policies of his predecessor, chief of which was the hand over
to a democratically elected government in 1979.

Hardly had Obasanjo settled down than the press began to groan under his various draconian
laws. The first law to be promulgated was Decree 11, of 1976 titled “Public Officers Protection
Against False Accusation. In 1978, Obasanjo revived the Newspaper Prohibition of Circulation
Act of 1967, a development which forced the Newsbreed Magazine, published by Chief Chris
Okoli out of circulation for two publications.

Also, in 1978, the Obasanjo regime enacted Decree 31, of 1978 entitled “Nigerian Press
Council”. Ideally, the decree should have been applauded by media practitioners, but it was
found that the government had an ulterior motive. Duyile (1987) says the press council “has been
rendered dysfunctional by the non-participation of members of the Nigerian Press Organisation
comprising the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and
the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN).” Because of the composition,
functions and powers given to the press council, it never enjoyed the necessary support, so, the
decree never saw the light of the day.

Besides these decrees, media men were frequent at police stations during the Obasanjo’s military
regime. Even journalists from government-owned media houses were not left out. Journalists
such as Stephen Okorie from the New Nigeria and David Attah of the Daily Times were
variously detained by the Nigeria Security Organisation (NSO) now State Security Services
(SSS).
The Shagari Administration (1979 – 1983)

This is the era the media seemed to enjoyed unbridled freedom of expression and of the press,
but used to its extreme - in the negative. Shagari capitalized on what military left behind (1979
Constitution) and played politics with the media. The National Party of Nigeria (NPN) led
federal government politicized the media and used media to fan the embers of hatred among
opposition.

There were several attacks on media men of Lagos/Ibadan axis by the Nigerian Police and the
SSS. Media organizations in the NPN controlled states enjoyed unlimited government patronage
in terms of advertisement and other largesse, but the so-called opposition media suffered neglects
only to be rewarded with harassments, arrest, and detention by the security agents.

During Shagari’s administration, the Nigerian media was polarized along ethnic and party line; a
situation which nearly destroyed the spirit-de-corps. The media, especially the electronic,
became a tool for propaganda in the hand of the government. The media at that period served as
“partners in progress” – complete break from the norm; a complete failure in service to the
Nigerian public.

The Return Of The Military: Buhari / Idiagbon Regime(1983 – 1985)

Shagari’s presidency only lasted till December 31, 1983. On the eve of a new year, Nigerians’
rest from military rule ended with the birth of the Buhari / Idiagbon military regime. In Buhari’s
maiden address on January 1, 1984, the 1979 constitution was suspended and major political
officers holders were arrested and detained. Buhari was quoted to have said that he would deal
with the press, and true to his words, the first became the second victim of the unpopular
Buhari/Idiagbon regime.

General Mohammed Buhari quickly promulgated the repugnant Decree 4, 0f 1984, titled “Public
Officers Protection Against False Accusation”. This decree was aimed at gagging the press and
checkmating the overzealous press, which the regime had accused of truncating the second
republic. Suleiman (2002:32-33)) says “Decree No. 4 of 1984 established a special military
tribunal to try journalists for alleged offences under the Public Officers (Protect Against False
Accusation). It provided, among other things, that: ‘Any person who publishes in any form,
whether written or otherwise, any message, rumour, or report which is false in any material
particular or which brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Military Government or the
Government of a state or a public officer to ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence
under this Decree.”

GNL, publishers of The Guardian, and two journalists with the newspaper – Tunde Thompson,
then Senior Diplomatic Correspondent, and Nduka Irabor, who was Assistant News Editor, were
the first victims of the obnoxious law. These two gentlemen were charged with publishing false
news stories in The Guardian of April 1 & 8, 1984 with the headlines :”Eight Military Chiefs
Tipped as Ambassadors” and “Haruna to Replace Hannaniya.” Immediately, a military tribunal
headed by a high court judge, Mr. Justice Olalere Ayinde was constituted. The two journalists
were found guilty, charged and sentenced to one year prison term each (without option of fine),
while the Guardian newspaper was fined N50, 000.

Perhaps the most draconian decree ever created by the military in Nigeria in contravention of the
rights guaranteed Nigerians by the Constitution is the State Security (Detention of Persons)
Decree 2 of 1984. Although not specifically aimed at the media, it turned out to be most
suppressive on the press of all the military laws.

The Buhari era brought back the memory of the dark days of colonialism. Buhari further
extended his hatred towards the media by allocating import license for the importation of
newsprint to Newspaper organizations. But the media houses that were critical of the government
were denied import license, while some newspaper houses had their newsprints seized and
shared by the federal government newspaper houses. It was in the middle of these that Buhari’s
regime was overthrown in a palace coup.

The Babangida Regime (1985 – 1993)

The arrival of the self acclaimed first Nigerian military president, General Ibrahim Babangida
was welcomed with great relief by the press and Nigerians in general. In his first address to the
nation he pledged to run an administration that would respect human rights. He abrogated Decree
4 of 1984. Many journalists and government critics put in detention by the Buhari government
were immediately released. He went ahead to outline some very popular programmes, chief of
which was the return to civil rule. Babangida’s popularity soon soared

But rather than repealing Decree 2, Babangida resorted to amending it. In 1986, the original
detention period of three months was extended to six months. Nigerian pressmen soon exposed
Babangida’s plan to truncate the return to civil rule. In fact, it did not take very long before
Babangida’s apparent romance with the press to wear off. The press soon became the victim of
IBB’s regime’s brutality.

The first sophisticated assassination technique surfaced during Babangida’s regime when on
October 19, 1986,one of the founding fathers and editor-in-chief of a weekly investigative
magazine, Newswatch, was killed with a parcel bomb.

Newswatch magazine was startled further for publishing the findings of the Political Bureau.
The Babangida regime, for this reason promulgated the “Proscription and Prohibition from
Circulation” Decree of 1987 to ban Newswatch from circulation. These marked the beginning of
the sore government –media relations during the Babangida days.

Shortly, afterwards, the Babangida government came up with an outrageous “Newspaper

Registration” Decree 43 of 1993. This law according to Abayomi(2003), is a law which requires
the existing newspaper organizations to renew their operational licenses on yearly basis. By
implication, the law was made to de-register any newspaper organization that was considered too
critical of the government.

Besides, during Babangida’s regime, pressmen were constantly harassed by the security agents,
the Police, SSS. Many newspaper titles were proscribed. The Concord Group of Newspapers had
their titles off the newsstands for carrying an economy story titled “Has Babangida given up?”
The government felt embarrassed and ordered the seal off of the newspaper organization. The
government even demanded the apology from Bayo Onanuga, the then editor of National
Concord . Newspapers such as The Punch, The Guardian, suffered similar, even worse fate.
The regime could be credited for the deregulation of the broadcast spectrum with decree 38 of
1992 which informed the birth of some private broadcast organizations and the establishment of
new private-owned broadcast houses in Nigeria today.

The annulment of the June 12, 1993 election furthered soiled the already destroyed reputation
and image of the Maradona regime before IBB finally, amidst serious crisi, handed over to the
Sonekan led Interim National Government.

The Abacha Regime (1993 – 1998)

This study would have acknowledged the Ernest Shonekan Interim government, but it was not a
government that was accorded any respect either by the Nigerian masses or the press because it
was seen as the handpicked kitchen government organized by the military.

However, since it was adjudged an illegitimate government by a high court, it was schemed out
by General Sanni Abacha, who returned Nigeria to the era of a full blown military rule in
November 1993. The Abacha regime was perhaps the darkest military era in the history of
military rule and government-media relations in Nigeria. In a desperate bid to stop the press from
further attack on the military government, the Abacha regime reeled out several obnoxious laws
such as Decree 43 of 1999 which stipulated stiff registration conditions for even existing
newspapers and magazines. Also, the Nigerian Media Council and the National Communication
Commission were the brain child of Abacha by which a special court was to be created to try
erring journalists.

Abacha’s regime forced the press to practice what we call “guerrilla journalism”. This was when
magazines like TELL, The News and The Tempo had it rough in the hands of the security
agents. Dr. Kayode Fayemi, present Ekiti State Governor, was operating an anti-government
radio station from a car being driven about it Lagos, so nobody could trace it. During these dark
days, many journalists were arrested, detained, tried, jailed and even killed by the Abacha
government. Several journalists such as George Mbah, Onome Osifo Whiskey and Charles
Mbang of TELL, Niran Malaolu of The Diet, Moshood Fayemiwo of The Razor; all suffered in
the hand of Abacha’s men. Even Dapo Olorunyomi of The News magazine had his pregnant wife
arrested when he could not be found; Bagauda Kaltho was killed in a bomb blast in Kaduna, all
under Abacha’s regime. It was later revealed that all the murders in the Abacha days were all
state sponsored murders. According to Abayomi (2003), “the era was a reminiscence of dark
ages when power was might and barbarism became a state policy pursued with all vigour, power
and strength through the state apparatus of coercion.”

The Abacha regime soon ended with the death of the dictator, thus ushering the Abdulsalam
Abubakar’s regime which was just a mere transitional government that eventually handed over to
a democratically elected civilian government in May 1999.

General Abdulsalam Abubakar handed over to General Olusegun Obasanjo Rtd. on May 19,
1999 as the President and Commander of the Armed Forces.

Obasanjo Presidency (1999-2007)

General Olusegun Obasanjo inherited the hurriedly drafted and approved 1999 Constitution,
which to many, including journalists did not reflect the aspirations of the Nigerian masses.
Neither did the constitution provide for press freedom, it only guarantee freedom of expression,
which many mistake for press freedom.

The Obasanjo administration considerably rebuilt cordiality between the government and the
press. Obasanjo started with the appointment of journalists as presidential spokesman. He held
regular parley with journalists on radio and television. In 2001, Obasanjo organized a
countrywide media tour so newsmen could see first-hand the achievements of the administration.
The House of Representatives under Obasanjo administration sponsored the Freedom of
Information Bill, which was passed into law but was said to have disappeared from the
President’s table before he could give his assent.

The saying that “once a military man, always a military man” soon reflected in Obasanjo’s days
when Obansanjo government arrested, detained and arraigned Gbenga Aruleba of African
Independent Television (AIT) and one other journalist before a law court for allegedly reporting
that the Presidential Jet purchased by the OBJ government was a refurbished aircraft purchased
at a rather exorbitant price.
During this same administration, the AIT’s station in Alagbado, Lagos was shut down and the
station’s license withdrawn, following the live, on-the-scene broadcast of the bodies of an
October 2006 Bellview plane crash victim at Lisa Village in Ogun State.

Well, like every other regimes, the Obasanjo administration came and gone, paving way for the
Umar Musa Yar’Adua presidency; the first successful civilian to civilian handing over.

Yar’adua / Goodluck Jonathan Presidency (2007 Till Date)

Late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua took over from General Olusegun Obasanjo in an election
which Nigerians and the international community claimed to be the worst ever in the history of
our nationhood. The late President even admitted that the process that brought him into power
was marred with various irregularities; a misnomer he took steps to correct.

However, the administration did what was never expected of a democratically elected civilian
government; even, worse than the Obasanjo administration. It was a general knowledge that the
health of the late President was failing and the press, as the watchdog was always keeping the
Nigerian public informed about the president’s ill health. This was a situation that pitched a hole
in the government – press relations during the Yar’Adua led administration. It was as though we
had returned to the dark years of military rule.

The first issue came when LEADERSHIP Weekend published a story in its November 8, 2008
edition on the health condition of the president. But even before the presidency could comment
on the said report, the paper had already discovered some factual errors to which they published
a series of retractions in several press statements. In a swift reaction, the Chairman and Editor-in-
Chief of LEADERSHIP Newspapers Group, Mr Sam Nda-Isaiah and two of the paper's editors,
were together with the paper charged to court on the instruction of the president over allegations
of a joint act of defamation of character, injurious falsehood, printing or engraving of matter
known to be defamatory and the sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory
matter.
Second was the arrest of the publisher of Sahara Reporters, an online investigative newspaper at
the Murtala Mohammed Airport in Lagos by officials of the State Security Service (SSS) for
allegedly publishing online, the pictures of the late president’s 10 year old son, living a
rebellious and wasteful lifestyle.

To make it the third, Channels TV, was shut down by Yar'Adua on September 17, 2008.
Yar'Adua sent Nigeria's State Security Service (SSS) to shut down the station and its senior staff
were arrested because the channel reported that Yar'Adua would step down because of his health.
The report by Channels TV was attributed to information received from News Agency of Nigeria
(NAN).
However, upon investigation, NAN stated that it had not issued any statement about the
President stepping down. The suspect one line e-mail, received by Channels TV, has now proven
to be a hoax sent from a computer in the Ivory Coast.

Clearly, in this case, it was revealed that the information Channels TV reported was incorrect.
Channels should have had the chance to recant the information and correct the mistake. The
proper reaction from Yar'Adua's seemingly defensive administration should have been to simply
correct Channels TV and any other station that might refer to that incorrect news, issue their own
statement to the contrary and do something that I constantly recommend - put the President on
television and on the radio to talk directly to the nation. This way, the President could side step
the traditional media in getting his message out and he could give the people confidence that
their President is working to better their situation. Draconian measures of shutting down the
press simply harken back to the military regimes of people like Ibrahim Babangida and Sani
Abacha whose actions struck fear in the hearts of the people. Yar'Adua has never been one to
suggest that sort of dangerous attitude which is highly jeapardous to Nigeria's struggling
democracy. Why did he start then?
The owners of the TV station had to tender an open and official apologies to the late president
before the station could be reopened, and the charges against them dropped.

It is equally unfortunate that the National Assembly under this administration has failed to pass
the Freedom of Information (FoI) Bill; a bill which is aimed at allowing for unbridled access to
government or public information, by any individual, especially members of the Fourth Estate.
Although Yar’Adua died in office, leaving the rein of leadership in the hands of his former vice,
now President Goodluck Jonathan, media watchgroups, scholars and professionals are still
breathing some air of relief with their fingers crossed, not sure of what the present
Goodluck/Sambo administration is capable of.

CONCLUSION

Having chronicled government-press relations in Nigeria from pre-independence era till present
dispensation, we can make bold to say that based on the instances surveyed and analysed,
government-media relation in Nigeria is either static or retrogressing. The continual changes and
political instability of the past did not give much room for building and consolidating of
government-media understanding, and this has been the major problem in the relationship of the
institutions even till today.

For any meaningful social, economic and infrastructural development to be evident in Nigeria
therefore, we must strive to ensure a healthy or cordial government-media relations. A most
reasonable way to achieve this is by the passage of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Bill and the
inclusion a clear and succinct provision for press freedom in the Nigerian Constitution. Such an
arrangement will allow for a flourishing relationship that will facilitate the building and
sustenance of a lasting democratic values and favourable political, economic and socio-cultural
atmosphere in Nigeria.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abayomi, Silas O. (2003). Government –media relations since 1960 In Akinfeleye, Ralph A. &
Innocent E. Okoye (Eds) Issues in Nigeria Media History:1900-2000 AD.(pp. 105-118)
Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd.

Azikiwe, Nnamdi (1994). My Odyssey. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Constitutional Rights Project (1993) The Crisis of Press Freedom in Nigeria. Mbeyi &
Associates, Lagos.

Constitution Rights Project (1997) Suppression of Press Freedomin Nigeria. Mbeyi &
Associates, Lagos.

Duyile, Dayo (1987) Makers of Nigerian Press: An Historical Analysis of Newspaper

Development, The Pioneer Heroes, The Modern Press Barons and the New Publishers
from 1859 – 1987. Lagos: Gong Communication Nigeria Ltd.

Ekwelie, Sylvanus A. (2010) The Growth of and Need for a Fourth Estate. [A lecture to honour
Prince Tony Momoh] Nigeria: University of Lagos.

Ekwelie, Sylvanus (1977) On Press Freedom: Amakiri Revisited. Unilag Communication

Review

Nwosu, Ikechukwu (2008) Comparative Analysis of Media-Government Relationship in Nigeria,

Britain and the USA. In Ralph A. Akinfeleye (ed.) Contemporary Issues in Mass Media
for Development and National Security. (pp 159-166) Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd.

Okoye, Innocent E. (2003) Historical Overview and Analysis of government – media relations
since 1900 in Ralph A Akinfeleye and Innocent E. Okoye (eds) Issues in Nigeria Media
History:1900-2000 AD. (pp. 91 – 104) Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd.

Suleiman, Joshua (2002) Key Issues in Nigerian Journalism. Lagos: Busprint Press.