FG, Tinubu and Daily Trust’s faux pas on Samoa Agreement, By Abdulaziz Abdulaziz

In the ensuing days, professionals and media organisations, some of them known to be very critical of the current administration, came out to fault the reporting as lacking in merit. Those who gave outright verdicts against the Daily Trust story, either through fact-checks or analyses include the BBC, PREMIUM TIMES, The PUNCH, Professor Farooq Kperogi, a Daily Trust columnist – Dr Suleiman A. Suleiman, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), among others. The expectation was for a clear and immediate retraction, as it was evident that the paper got it wrong.

On Wednesday, 2 October, the Daily Trust newspaper came out with the long overdue public apology to the Federal Government over its erroneous reporting of 4 July on the Samoa Agreement. It was a needful closure to a touchy controversy. It is a commendable gesture on part of the Media Trust management. It is not everyone who has the humility to admit wrongdoing. This has now settled the matter and brought to rubbles the scornful allegations contained in the story under reference.

The watery lead story of 4 July alleged that the Samoa Agreement, signed by the Federal Government (among other nations that constitute the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, also known as OACPS) with the European Union (EU) contained clauses that promote LGBTQ rights. To make it more salacious, the story linked it to an imaginary $150 billion in benefits. Astonishingly, there is nowhere in the story where evidence was provided to support both claims. There couldn’t have been as neither LGBTQ (or anything close to it) nor $150 billion was mentioned anywhere in the bulky multilateral document.

In its apology, Daily Trust said it agreed wholly with the verdict passed by the independent panel constituted by the Nigerian Media Complaint Commission (NMCC). The panel’s report released on 23 September, following interrogation of the Federal Government’s complaint, was unequivocal. “The NMCC finds that the 403-page Samoa Agreement does not contain any clause that compels underdeveloped and developing nations to support the agitations by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) community for recognition as a condition for getting financial and other supports from advanced nations. Indeed, there is no reference whatsoever in the agreement to the issue of LGBTQ.”

I was appalled by the story, first as a professional, before anything else. My social media post on the day it was published harped on its lack of the rudimentary journalistic requirement – evidence. It was a comment I could have made even if I were not in government. Frankly, it is still a wonder how that story passed the crucible of the Trust newsroom, where I had worked and know the editorial rigour.

Expectedly, the story whipped up tempers. Tongues were set wagging, mostly in one direction and because the story came from a medium trusted for its journalism. Everyone – except discerning professionals – took it as the gospel truth. Fortunately, or not, the story came out on a Thursday. For its socio-religious sensitivity, it instantly became the main topic of discussion everywhere, especially in the Muslim North. Our dear imams were enraged. I don’t blame them because, again, the story came from Trust!

As if the anger wasn’t enough, some opposition figures followed the fire with more tinder. They went about mobilising religious leaders overnight to come out hard against the government. The next day, most of the imams went to the minbar writhing with anger, armed only with the wrong information. They poured out invectives at a government they supported but which was now “courting calamity greater than the economic hardship” on its people, as one of them put it. President Tinubu, the administration, and all of us working with it were anathematised for “selling out the country to promoters ofLGBTQ.” There was nothing the government couldn’t do for money, it was said. The congregants left the mosques angrier.

In the ensuing days, professionals and media organisations, some of them known to be very critical of the current administration, came out to fault the reporting as lacking in merit. Those who gave outright verdicts against the Daily Trust story, either through fact-checks or analyses include the BBC, PREMIUM TIMES, The PUNCH, Professor Farooq Kperogi, a Daily Trust columnist – Dr Suleiman A. Suleiman, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), among others. The expectation was for a clear and immediate retraction, as it was evident that the paper got it wrong. Buoyed by the emotional sermons and partisan support from some quarters, the paper held on despite acknowledging “lapses in our reporting.”

In the wake of the controversy, we went through great pains trying to explain why there was no wolf around the Samoa Agreement, as the drafters of the Daily Trust story wanted Nigerians to believe. I asked: In what ways had the agreement altered provisions of the Nigerian laws on LGBTQ? What are the practical implications that indicate support? I got curses, rather than answers. It was painful to see almost everyone, especially up North, turn their back to reason, instead choosing to go with the contorted story that failed to quote even a line from the agreement to support its claims.

Exasperating as it was, I didn’t blame the clergy and the larger public for the harsh judgement. The blame lay squarely on the doorstep of Trust. And this is the purpose of this post-mortem piece. Journalistic powers are akin to those of a soldier with a gun. Releasing the trigger in the wrong direction could kill or maim the innocent, and no amount of apology or even reprimand of the culprit could cure the loss suffered by the innocent. This is why the old principle that says “if you’re in doubt, leave it out” is evergreen for journalism practice. As professionals, we know pretty well that a rebuttal or retraction can never attain the mileage of the original. There are still multitudes out there whose opinions will not change, having been formed since the first story.

It is for this reason that responsible journalism is non-negotiable, because as the great old Philip L. Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, once said, “Journalism is the first rough draft of history.” That draft often has a way of sticking, even if subsequent events invalidate its premise.

Yes, accountability journalism is a sine qua non for a healthy democracy. However, as the legal maxim goes, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Accountability journalism is not a byword for stone-throwing, because when all you do is throw stones, you end up causing more harm than good. We must, at all times, ensure the sanctity of truth, fairness, and the public good. As the celebrated American war reporter, Edward R Murrow, said, “[T]o be credible we must be truthful.”

I’ll close with the bon mot from the grand Sardauna, Sir Ahmadu Bello, who while admonishing the founding team of the New Nigerian newspapers said, “Tell the truth about us, tell us the truth about others.” We ask for no more.

Abdulaziz Abdulaziz is senior special assistant to President Tinubu on Print Media @AbdulFagge