The drafters of the Nigerian constitution also known as the wise men had two posers, they were not immediately able to solve. The first was what to do with the lofty objectives in chapter two of the constitution titled 'Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.' The thrust of what the chapter required government to do was to implement ideals such as free education and free health for all etc.
It was obvious that in reality, those objectives were rather unattainable in the first few years of government in a developing society. So, it was agreed that the objectives be captioned'non-justiciable' meaning they cannot be enforced by the courts. Put differently, nobody would be allowed to go to court on the subject because as ideal objectives, government should be given the discretion to determine which objective to deal with and to what extent at a given point in time.
The second poser was what to do with any government that abuses the discretion by totally ignoring the objectives which could impede societal growth and development. This was what gave birth to Section 22 of the constitution which mandated the media to hold government accountable to the people. It was expected that the media which harassed the colonial master in favour of Nigerians would similarly be able to use their powerful organs of mass communication to push government to be pragmatic about attaining many of the fundamental objectives. No one expected that Nigerian politicians would design and legalize strategies to completely neutralize the nation's journalists from meeting the clear mandate given to them by the constitution. One of the things our politicians did was to introduce the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention Etc)Act 2015.
Although the Act had in mind serious crimes concerning digital electronic messaging that could undermine national security, politicians at state level immediately domesticated the Act to make it impossible for the state government and its official to be made subject of any media investigation. They assumed that since the world had progressed to the digital age of technology any journalist could be held under the Act because everyone now uses computers. Ebonyi State was one of those that introduced its own Cybercrimes Law under which any political opponent who criticized government was immediately arrested as having breached the law. In 2022 however, the federal high court in Abakaliki quashed the law when it became obvious that it was enacted in secret without public knowledge and quickly accented to by the governor merely to criminalize political dissent.
The most unfortunate part of the law was that those arrested were not given an opportunity to open up on the grave allegations concerning corrupt practices by officials of government especially governors and their relations. In Cross River State, a journalist Agba Jalingo was detained for accusing former Governor Ben Ayade of diverting N500 million from the state treasury. Rather than give the journalist an opportunity to prove his allegation for the good of society, he was charged with treasonable felony, terrorism, cultism and disturbance of public peace. Within a month, Joseph Odok, another journalist and critic of the same governor was arrested over an allegation of terrorism. It became obvious that the charges of terrorism were made by the police to justify the detention of the critics while the facts of the criticisms were covered up.The practice is yet to end.
Only last week,Shafi'u Umar Tureta, a social media critic was hastily sent to prison in Sokoto for posting a viral video featuring a lavish birthday party hosted by the wife of the state governor. The video also allegedly showed the celebrant virtually abusing the naira by spreading money on the ground during the party. Another media report said the social critic also allegedly shared a video of the governor struggling to construct a sentence in English. He was also alleged to have posted the governor's senior secondary leaving certificate which stated that the governor failed the examination and also earned F9 in English suggesting that the governor was incapable of speaking the language fluently. This case no doubt opens up several issues worth considering starting with the supposed birthday celebrant.
To start with, was there such a birthday party? If yes,nothing is wrong with holding a party. Many people do that often and the fact that a lady is married to a governor should not bar her from holding a birthday party. Second, did the governor's wife spread money on the ground during the party? If yes, it means the report is correct but she probably would not be asked to account for abusing the naira because of her status. But if the story is only an imagination of the accused, then he could be described as mischievous. In the case of the governor, if the school result reportedly shared was correct, then it is a valid report. Again, did he score F9 in English and did the video show him struggling to construct a sentence in English? All these must be false before the critic can be said to have a case to answer. Even at that,is imprisonment the first step to take? In fact, who authorised the police to imprison the accused before charging him to court?
It was also reported that Fatima Hassan, the Magistrate before whom the accused was arraigned barred reporters from covering the court proceedings. What was the reason for such a decision on a matter of public interest? Here, we need to return to S22 of our constitution which mandates the media to hold government accountable to the people. If the judiciary is the third arm of government, is Magistrate Hassan not part of government? If she is, how will the media hold her accountable to the people where her court holds secret sessions? This is probably a political case in which everyone is wrongly answerable to those in power. Some two years ago, the situation would have been different because the accused in this case is said to be a passionate follower of the former governor of the state, Aminu Tambuwal now a senator. It is perhaps the different political camps to which the parties belong that seems to explain the importance of the case.
It is however worrisome that a case such as the one before us whose facts are clearly verifiable is sufficiently remarkable enough to warrant what the accused has gone through. Let us assume that some of the allegations if not all are wrong, why order an accused to be held in a correctional centre for as long as September 6 as the magistrate directed? Is that not more than enough punishment before the case starts? From history, we know that the case will end up with nothing to write home about because as usual the authority offended may not be anxious to follow the case to its logical end; the goal in essence,is just to punish the accused. The case would however join other notorious ones that continually dissuade anyone from exposing the misapplication of public funds. While the police ought to obey those in authority, they should also have an idea of what the law says about an offence. If the governor and his wife thought their image was damaged, the accused would still be free to establish his innocence because in a case of defamation, truth is critical in favour of the accused
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The point that must be made is that whether it is Cybercrimes Act or any other issue that those in authority hope to hide under, we cannot develop if our leaders are allowed to use other strategies to overwhelm the constitution. Any person who decides to hold public office must recognise that he has opted to be the servant of the people. In other words, it is wrong for a governor who has chosen to be a servant to seek to lord it over the same people that are his masters. No person in government should seek to use his office to punish a journalist that the constitution has mandated to make him answerable to the people. This is because on the authority of S22 of our constitution, the media can compel those in authority to fall in line since governance objectives in Chapter 2 of our constitution cannot be taken to court.
