I thank the Oyo State Council of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this live issue of the quest for national unity or better still, national integration, and how the Nigerian journalist can help to achieve it.
Although the organisers call it a lecture, I would rather call it a presentation since I am not an academic but a journalist who, however, has observed developments in the country for more than three decades with some experience in unionism and governance.
Introduction
Coming at a time of debilitating strife nationwide, this is a relevant discourse as the nation grapples with the most devastating security concerns in the face of widespread killings and self-determination agitations across the land.
For many socio-political analysts, the insecurity across the land is a deep manifestation of the fundamental dislocation in the country, which it is argued has its foundation in the wobbled political structure that has been foisted on it.
That Nigeria is an amalgamation of different peoples and cultures that has continued to struggle with the challenge of nation-building is a historical fact that is widely acknowledged even by the topic of this presentation. Nigeria has since independence on October 1, 1960 continued to strive to procure national unity. And in spite of the best efforts of its leaders, that goal as enshrined in its coat of arms: ‘Unity and Faith; Peace and Progress’ has continued to elude it. The rising agitation for self-determination in the South (Oduduwa Republic in the South-west, Biafra in the South-east and militancy in the South-south), the insurgency in the North-east (Boko Haram), the banditry in the North-west, and the herders-farmers hostility in the North-central as well as several inter and intra-ethnic clashes, particularly in the North-central and South-east, are a clear evidence that Nigeria is indeed a nation in a desperate search for not only unity but also peace, which is required for the progress that would make Nigerians to have faith in their country.
The issues, therefore, are whether unity is attainable, under what condition it is attainable and what should be the role of the journalist in the efforts to achieve national integration.
Definition of Terms
Notwithstanding that this is not an academic exercise, I believe I should define certain terms, including journalists, the mass media and national unity or integration, which would occur frequently in this discourse, for the purpose of clarity.
I have adopted the simple definitions by Wikipedia with respect to journalists and mass media. It says:
“A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in the form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worthy form and disseminates them to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism.”
It defines Mass Media as: “The communication outlets or tools used to store and deliver information or data.” These include print media (i.e. books, newspapers and magazines); broadcast media (i.e. radio and television); New/Digital Media (i.e. Internet and the numerous platforms it has generated); photography, films, advertising, among others.
By national integration, I mean the recognition and awareness of a common identity amongst citizens of a country, along with deliberate and sustained effort to nurture such an identity in pursuit of national unity.
Let me further clarify that although it is presumed that the Nigerian nation is settled and, therefore, we can easily refer to the media as the Nigerian media, it may, however, not be that simplistic. The media as an element of the country’s superstructure is a reflection of its basis or substructure. Just like other citizens, journalists are not immune from the different contending interests and heterogeneous forces in our society. We can’t also pretend that the media in Nigeria is an amalgam of varying interests.
The Nigerian media, therefore, means both the print and electronic media that have operated and are operating in the country and that have played the role of collating and disseminating information, notwithstanding the varied interests of their owners.
The media over the years has grown from the uni-linear approach into a multi-linear global world with the emergence of the internet and the accompanying social media. This has also led to the collapse of the hitherto division between print, broadcast and online media. Virtually every print media now has a broadcast arm and digital platform, and stories are now accompanied by video production.
Since the journalist derives his origin from the collation and dissemination of information through the media, I see no basic distinction between his role and that of the media. Subsequently, I would use them interchangeably although I would refer more to the media, which is specifically mentioned in Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution as altered.
The Quest for National Integration
As I pointed out earlier the prevailing agitations in the polity bear testimony to the failing struggle of Nigeria to attain national integration. Academics have traced the root cause of this failure to Lord Lugard’s amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of Nigeria in 1914, which brought the different ethnic groups with different cultures, religions and languages together. But more faults have been laid at the doorsteps of successive indigenous leadership that took the reins of power from the colonialists in 1960 for their lack of vision and commitment to national unity as they sought to procure and sustain power by exploiting the diverse nature of the Nigerian people.
At independence in 1960 the principal task of the political elite that took power was to work out a socio-political and economic strategy that would unite the diverse people, over 250 ethnic groups, and give them a sense of nationhood. Their task was to covert the diversity to strength, hence the concept of unity in diversity.
For six years, the politicians massed in the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) in the North; Action Group (AG) in the West; and National Congress of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) in the East, led by Sir Ahmadu Bello, Malam Aminu Kano, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe respectively engaged in a zero some political power game, which left the country drifting apart and eventually brought down the First Republic and ushered in the military in 1966.
Understandably tired of the squabbles among politicians, which had dashed their expectations of independence, many Nigerians invested hope of a better country in the military that took over. But that hope would soon be dashed as the power struggle continued among the military successors.
The group of five majors, led by Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, shed more blood of Northern politicians and military officers, leading to a counter within six months by the latter, which led to the death of the Head of State, Maj. Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi, and Western Region Governor, Lt. Col. Adekunle Fajuyi, and many other officers of Eastern origin. With a Northern officer, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, taking over, and the resistance by Eastern Region Governor, Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu, as well as the pogrom in the North, the three-year Civil War followed.
The Civil War (1967-1970) became the first concrete manifestation of the division in the country and also amplified the compelling need for national integration. Although the military held the country together for 33 years in the first instance and another 16, making a total of 49 years before handing over power to the civilians in 1999, many analysts have argued that the military by its policies did more to widen than close the divide in the country.
Reference is made its deformation of the federal structure, which is thought best suited for an heterogenous country like Nigeria; the creation of states which disrupted the geographical balance in federation, by distributing more units to the North than the South, and the seizure of mineral resources from the federating units by the federal government. These policies, it is argued, are the sources of the persistent agitations of today, which 22 years of unbroken democratic rule have not changed fundamentally but rather worsened.
National Integration Policies
It is, however, pertinent to note that efforts and policies were made to integrate the country. But the efforts would seem to have failed to abate the tide of agitations for a more inclusive polity. The policies include state creation; establishment of unity schools; National Youth Service Corps (NYSC); federal character principle; relocation of federal capital to Abuja; revenue allocation formula and the establishment of National Orientation Agency (NOA).
Faced with the resistance by Ojukwu, Gowon sought to weaken the capacity of the regions to stand up to the federal government. In 1967, therefore, he created 12 states out of the four regions (North, East, West and Mid-west). The deft political move was meant to assuage the deep feeling of marginalisation by the minorities by excising them from the majority groups, giving them their own states. The measure was taken to preserve the unity of the country. Subsequent military administrations increased the number of states from 12 to the eventual 36 in 1996.
After weakening the region through fragmentation, Gowon took further steps to consolidate his integration efforts by enacting Decree No. 24 of 1973, which created the NYSC. The scheme aims at enhancing interaction among Nigerian youths by providing them with the opportunity of compulsory national service in states other than their places of origin after tertiary education.
Gowon also established unity schools, Federal Government Colleges, to bring up children from all the states of the federation in the same school in the hope that they would bond together to create a new crop of future leaders that would see themselves as Nigerians with shared national values and orientation.
Although the first set of these institutions had been set up by the British before independence, three new ones were established in Warri, Sokoto and Enugu in 1966. In 1973, Gowon increased the tally to 12, one each per the states he created. The number today has increased to 104.
In 1976 the government of Gen. Murtala Mohammed set up the Justice Akinola Aguda Committee to identify a suitable place for the new capital of Nigeria to be built. In locating the new Federal Capital Territory in Abuja that spreads across the then Benue Plateau, Kaduna and Kwara States, the committee said the circumstances of Nigeria demanded that the capital should not situated within a city like Lagos with a strong connection with one of the major ethnic groups but a neutral place deliberately created to give every Nigerian a sense of ownership.
With the impending return of power to the civilians in 1979 the military provided, in the guided constitution they handed over, the principle of federal character, which forbade the domination of any section of the country in federal appointments. It mandated equal representation of each federating unit in federal appointments.
To stem the tide of agitations in the South-south, particularly in the Niger Delta, the military regime of President Ibrahim Babangida granted the region 3% of revenue derived from oil. This was later increased to 13% in the 1999 Constitution as altered. In addition to increased revenue allocation, the civilian administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo that took over also established the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), which took over from the military’s Oil Mineral Production Areas Development Communities (OMPADEC) to support development projects in the region. His successor, President Umaru Yar’Adua, created the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs to help mainstream resources for the overall development of the region.
The last of the policies was the establishment in 1993 of NOA, which was preceded by MAMSER. It is aimed, among others at mobilising favourable public opinion for government programmes; policies and establishing an appropriate national framework for educating, orientating and indoctrinating Nigerians towards attitudes, values and culture which project an individual’s national pride and positive national image for Nigeria; and awakening the consciousness of Nigerians to their responsibilities to the promotion of national unity, citizens’ commitment to their human rights to build a free, just and progressive society.
It is beyond debate that although these policies were well-intended, the desired outcome of engendering national unity and integration has not been realised, and many analysts say, may never be realised unless a fundamental structural change to the political and economic configuration of the country occurs.
Factors Militating against National Integration
As I pointed out earlier many academic and social analysts have located the root cause of the challenge to national integration to the 1914 amalgamation and the mismanagement of the country’s diversity by the political elites that inherited power at independence. The situation was worsened by corruption, which over the years has become endemic, rendering impossible the goal of concrete economic growth and development that would have helped to adumbrate the social crises that have followed.
When the military took over in 1966, it apprehended endemic corruption among politicians and the drift to disintegration as the cause of their action. There is no doubt that those two issues worsened under its 49 year-rule. Between it and its civilian counterparts, struggles for power and primitive accumulation of wealth persisted, generating deep-seated animosity in the polity. With corruption taking root, poverty, hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, lack of access to resources, cronyism, marginalization, tension and disaffection among ethnic nationalities became intractable. Without the requisite ideological background, it became easy for the people to wrongly attribute their misery to the secondary issues of ethnicity and religion, which the power mongering politicians exploited to the maximum, particularly during electoral contests.
While many analysts insist that the economic underdevelopment of the country arising from its political mismanagement remains a constant source of tension and an incentive to disintegration, the current think is that the solution to the challenge of national integration lies in the restructuring and rebalancing of the federation. Again, opinions are divided over this panacea, virtually along ethnic-cum religion lines of the North and South divide. But it is significant that many Northern political elites are beginning to find some merits in the clamour for restructuring as a counterweight to the rising agitations for self-determination and resource control in the Southern regions of the country.
The main argument for restructuring is that the best time-tested system of government for an heterogeneous country like Nigeria is federalism, which was what was inherited at independence, the advantages of which were evident in the works and achievements of the founding fathers of the nation, including Bello, Awolowo and Azikiwe. With its inherent propensity to guarantee the autonomy of the federating units to develop at their own pace, the healthy competition this would generate, it is argued, would facilitate a more even and rapid development of the federation. This had happened in the past. It was the military incursion into politics in 1966 that deformed the country’s federal structure, imposed a quasi-federal system that, enshrined in the subsequent post-military constitutions, has continued to engender national strife. The basic argument, therefore, is that the current unitarized federalism has failed and that it is better to return to the federalism that we inherited at independence that was working for us.
This was the point Chief Obafemi Awolowo made way back in 1947 when he said in his book Path to Nigerian Freedom: “If rapid political progress is to be made in Nigeria it is high time, we were realistic in tackling its constitutional problems. Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘French’. (The English, Welsh, French etc wear their nationality with patriotic pride unlike the Nigerian who sees himself from the ethnic lens).”
A major task before President Muhammadu Buhari’s second term as well as new (9th) National Assembly is to take the lead in developing a federalist constitution that has the buy-in of all Nigerians. It may seem a herculean task, but transformational leadership is all about doing the impossible.
In many senses, therefore, the search for unity and national integration cannot be found outside a constitutional rearrangement of the country’s political and economic structure. And whether the ongoing constitution amendments would address this remains to be seen as many of the proposals so far sans wholesale redistribution of the items on the exclusive legislative list in favour of the states (federating) units appear to be a dance around the substantive issue of giving more powers and resources to the states.
How Can the Journalist Help Resolve the Crisis of National Integration?
I think the answer lies in Section 22 of 1999 Constitution as altered, which provides that: “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.”
Perhaps the only professional group given a specific responsibility by the constitution is the media. The fundamental objective principles of state policies are encapsulated in Chapter 2 of the constitution which states the rights of citizens and obligations of the state, the denial of which are at the root of the current tensions that have pushed the country to the precipice. The provisions not being justiciable are handed over to the press to enforce through its watchdog role of holding the government accountable.
It seems to me that the 1999 Constitution as altered only appropriated the historic role of the media, which dates back to its precolonial history of serving as a platform of not only holding the colonial government responsible to the yearnings of the people for a better deal but also willingly becoming a tool for the expression of the agitation against colonial rule and the quest for independence.
The fact of the matter is that the professional role of the media has been to actively moderate the efforts at national integration by highlighting its pitfalls and pointing the way forward for the country. This it has been doing by providing its platforms for identifying both the challenges and their resolution and bringing them to the attention of not just the policy makers but also the citizenry. That way, it has played significantly its assigned role of making the government accountable to the people and providing feedback to policy makers.
This has been the traditional role of the media since the colonial times when its founding fathers used it as a platform to fight for independence from the colonialists. The press continued in this role during the post-independence, military and democratisation dispensations.
Without being immodest, there are few institutions that can rival the Nigerian media in terms of its epic contributions to the socio-political development of the country, acclaimed as the most populous Black nation in the world. We can, therefore, argue that the media virtually birthed Nigeria, and at different periods played a unique role to rescue it from the abyss.
Its history dates back to December 3rd, 1859, when Iwe Iroyin, the Yoruba and English language bi-weekly newspaper, was founded by Rev. Henry Townsend. Iwe Iroyin, published from 1859-1867, played a significant role in galvanizing early thoughts against colonial policies and was particularly renowned for its agenda-setting role in its 8 year period. Little wonder that the colonial government, which became uncomfortable and felt uneasy with the publication, reported Townsend, an Anglican cleric to the Church of England. The attempt by Townsend to buckle under and make the paper soften its stance against the colonial government greatly displeased the Egba people who mobilized to burn down the press.
It must have been part of the process to reinvent the golden era of Iwe Iroyin that must have propelled the Ogun State Council of the NUJ to revive the newspaper in December 2012 after 145 years in the doldrums.
Iwe Iroyin would be followed by several other publications set up by nationalist agitators who used them to mobilise the populace against colonial rule.
In his seminal work, “The Impact of the Lagos Press in Nigeria, 1861-1922,” J.H. Enemugwem documented the role played by the media in the constitutional developments of the era, saying they played significant roles of checks and balances in the early colonial administration of the country from 1861, when Lagos became a Crown Colony, to 1922 when the Nigerian Constitution of 1922 was achieved.
From the early constitutional development- Lyttleton Constitution of 1922, Richards Constitution of 1946, Macpherson Constitution of 1951 to the Independence Constitution of 1960, the press and its practitioners have been fingered as prime movers.
Unfortunately, Nigeria seems to have very high mortality of newspapers as virtually all the newspapers which propelled thoughts in that era apart from the Nigerian Tribune that was founded in 1949 are now defunct. The Daily Times which has changed ownership several times since its birth in 1926 could be said to be operating on life support.
One of Nigeria’s most acclaimed media historians, Prof. Fred Omu, has succinctly captured the heroic intervention of the press in the different stages of the country’s development in his epic work, “Press and Politics in Nigeria, 1880-1937 (Ibadan History Series). Omu’s other works, “The ‘Iwe Iroyin,’ 1859-1867,” “The Nigerian Newspaper Press, 1859-1937: a study of origin, growth and influence,” “The New Era and the Abortive Press Law of 1857,” “Journalism and the Rise of Nigerian Nationalism: John Payne Jackson, 1848-1915,” “The Dilemma of Press Freedom in Colonial Africa: the West African Example,” and “The Newspaper Press in Southern Nigeria, 1880-1900,” have all fully documented the role of the press and its practitioners during this period. The press galvanized thoughts that led to the massive engagements of different strata of the civil society in the cobbling of the 1960 Independence Constitution which laid the basis for governing a multi-ethnic Nigeria along with a federal arrangement that also guaranteed regional autonomy to the constituent parts.
The immediate post-independence period also saw the media striving to stabilize and give direction to the fledgling Balewa government. It joined forces with civil society to shut down the Anglo/Nigerian Defence Pact which would have made it possible for Britain to intervene militarily in the affairs of Nigeria the same way France intervened militarily in the affairs of its former colonies around the world. The media also rallied thoughts to ensure the country adopted a republican status in 1963. `
When the military took over in 1966 and suspended the legislature, the media stepped in fill the void by providing its platform for the discussion of government policies, and when it became evident that the military was overstaying its welcome it was the media that the pro-democracy and civil society organisations utilised to mobilise the people for the agitation for the return to democracy.
This, however, was at a great cost as the media suffered persecution, leading to the closure of some of the media houses and killing of some journalists. Several journalists suffered detention without trial while some were jailed for alleged accessory after the fact of treason in 1994. Notwithstanding these impediments, the media persisted in its supportive role, conducting interviews, publishing analysis, features, stories and editorials that exhibited the excesses of the military and promoted the campaign for democracy.
With the advent of democratic rule in 1999, the media was less combative but as the democratic administrations began to underperform, it became critical, and as many analysts agree, it was instrumental in unseating President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015 and in installing President Muhammadu Buhari.
It is to the credit of the media that it has not turned a blind eye to the failing Buhari administration that it helped to bring to power. As it not only dashed the hopes of Nigerians who had thought that it would restore the economy, secure the nation and tame corruption, the media has provided its platforms for aggrieved Nigerians to express their misgivings about the underperformance of the Buhari administration.
The Buhari administration has since responded to the media’s insistence on bringing it to account with punitive amendments to media laws that seek to gag the media and criminalise its practice.
This clearly is the purpose of the Nigerian Press Council Act Amendment Bill and the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission Amendment Bill both of which seek to regulate the media by imposing stringent rules and draconian punishments for any infraction of the law.
Of course, the media has responded concretely and served notice through the Nigerian Press Organisation (NPO), the umbrella body of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and Newspapers Proprietors’ Association of Nigeria (NPAN), that it would resist the move by the administration.
Obviously, the administration ought not to have embarked on this path, for if it had studied the history of the media, it would have realised that the media has the capacity to defend itself against government persecution. This capacity has been developed since the colonial days and it has been demonstrated across governments be they colonial, military or civilian. In any case, it is the country that would be the loser at the end of the day because a cowed media would not be effective in the discharge of its constitutional responsibility of holding the government to account.
Conclusion
The rising agitations for self-determination in the South-west and South-east as well as the threat of resurgence of militancy in the South-south coupled with the insurgency in the North-east, banditry in the North-west and farmer-herder conflict in the North-central are clear indications that Nigeria is struggling to achieve national integration despite the efforts of successive political leadership. Analysts have apprehended the skewed federal structure of the country for the crisis and argue that the way forward is to restructure and rebalance the federation through a wholesome constitutional reengineering that would that enable the constituent units to control their economic resources for the benefits of their citizens. This proposition has generated intense debate.
The media needs to moderate this debate by highlighting the salient points that would assist the citizenry and the political elite to arrive at the appropriate conclusion that facilitate the process of national integration.
Adebiyi is the Managing Editor, Thisday Newspapers
