Between Media Liberalisation and Recentralisation: A critical Assessment of the Attitude of Obasanjo’s Government to the Broadcast Media
(June 2007)
Introduction
Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired general in the Nigeria Army, former military Head of State and former civilian President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has had peculiar relationship with the media.
Though Mohammed Buhari, another retired army general and former military Head of State had the notoriety of promulgating, the often termed draconian law, Decree 4, which prescribed stiff penalty for publishing, anything deemed falsehood against public officials, Obasanjo it was who promulgated a law that was a forerunner of the dreaded Decree 4 of 1984.
The Public Officers Protection Against False Accusations Decree Number 11 of 1976, which took retroactive effect from 29 July, 1975 was he first step in the post-colonial Nigeria by the state to gag the media. This was also an indicator of the attitude of Obasanjo to the media and media workers.
This paper seeks to take a look at the way in which the Olusegun Obasanjo led Federal Government has related with the Broadcast Media in Nigeria, with special emphasis on the television.
The paper will also look at the attitude of the Obasanjo governments towards broadcasting right from his first shot at power between 1976 and 1979, and his return to power in the period running from 1999 to 2007. of particular interest is the interplay of hegemony and agenda setting theories of the media and how these could become potent weapon in the hand of state actors, even when such persons have shown unprecedented contempt for media and freedom of expression.
Such study as this is also critical, especially the period of Obasanjo’s tenure as civilian president as it gives more insight into how hegemony can become more potent than open clampdown on the media if applied by a leader conscious of the potency of the broadcast media and is desirous of unmitigated control of public opinion.
Quest for Liberalisation of Broadcasting Space: Earlier Stirs
In Nigeria, the quest for the liberalisation of the Broadcast environment had been on for a long time by several interests. The first known agitation for this freeing up of the airwaves was recorded in 1953 with the demand then led by the Action Group which was then the dominant political party in the South Western Nigeria. The party had led the campaign that broadcasting be removed from the Federal Government exclusive list to the concurrent list.
The demand for a review of the broadcast law, as recalled by Ifedayo Daramola[1] followed an incident in which the Colonial Governor General, John McPherson made some critical political allegations against the Action Group on the then National Radio, the Nigeria Broadcasting Service. The leader of Action Group, Late Obafemi Awolowo was however denied right of reply, ostensibly on federal colonial government directive.
The success of the agitations and subsequent grant of right to regional government to establish radio stations in the 1954 constitution led to the creation of the Western Nigeria Broadcasting Corporation (WNBC). By 1974, virtually all the regions in Nigeria had established both radio and TV stations.
This initial step at reducing central government’s exclusive control of right of access to a mass medium suffered a big blow 22 years after. In April 1976, the General Olusegun Obasanjo military government took over control and funding of the existing television stations and forbade the establishment of new ones.[2] A proper attempt at hegemony was sought the following year in the promulgation of Decree number 24[3] which granted the Federal Military Government controlled Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) the monopoly over TV network in Nigeria.
Reason given for the decision of the federal authorities then was attempt at strengthening cohesion in the country and reduction in regional loyalties.
Underneath this posture of state building and engendering harmony and national cohesion is the true hegemonic agenda of a military authority that has its base in the military command structure tradition.
NTA, Hegemony, National Interest, Contradictions and Crises of Legitimacy
The rationale for the decision of the federal military government to take over the control of the broadcast media, especially the television, is better grasped from the understanding of the place media occupies in legitimation struggle.
For a government not built on democratic principles, but desirous of acceptance by the mass of the people, a major area of interest for it would be the contest for the mind of the mass of the people. There will also be attempts at neutralising and unifying the population[4].
However, this move to take hold of the public space did not follow the Gramscian conception of the state taking hold of the mass media to support established power order and exclude opposition and contending ideologies through a dominant consensus that works in a concealed way rather than direct coercion.
The Obasanjo led military administration made no pretension in its move to stifle opposition voices and blocking out opinions and ideologies that did not flow from its own notion of social relations. There was apparent attempt too at ensuring that the most potent wing of the media serving as agent of diffusion was incapacitated through coercive control.
The broadcast media coming under the jackboot of the Obasanjo led military government could also be understood from the perception of the radio and television as having the capacity to spread ideas that can bring about change in the social structure and culture.[5]
The excuse given by the government then was anchored on the reality that though the regional television stations in the First Republic (post independence period) proclaimed national goals in their operational statements, yet the dominant tone was very much sectional and essentially partisan in federal politics. The accent was on regionalism and strengthening the power base accordingly to the needs of the government in power. In short, programming was simply divisive and propagandistic, as the coverage traced a sectional pattern-reflective of the nation's political ideologies and diversities[6]
The view that the regional television stations had deviated from their original purpose of improving the lots of their people through provision of informal education for the adult populace and provision of information that could improve their social cum cultural status,[7] and regressed to serving partisan purpose was corroborated by Egbon
Although all the Nigerian Regional Television Stations in the First Republic (post independence period) proclaimed national goals in their operational statements, yet the dominant tone was very much sectional and essentially partisan in federal politics. The accent was on regionalism and strengthening the power base accordingly to the needs of the government in power. In short, programming was simply divisive and propagandistic, as the coverage traced a sectional pattern-reflective of the nation's political ideologies and diversities[8]
In 1977, the Obasanjo military administration promulgated the Decree 24 with retroactive power taking effect from April 1976, establishing the Nigeria Television Authority and taking over existing regional stations.
Decree 24 of 1977 gave the NTA the exclusive right for television broadcasting in Nigeria. It stated further that 'it shall be the duty of the Authority to provide, as a public service in the interest of Nigeria, independent and impartial television broadcasting for general reception within Nigeria'. The Authority shall ensure that the service which it provides, when considered as a whole, reflects the unity of Nigeria as a Federation and, at the same time, gave adequate expression to the culture, characteristics and affairs of each Zone or other parts of the Federation.[9]
This monopoly was to continue till the end of Obasanjo military rule and until the emergence of the second democratic republic. While no doubt the hegemonic crusade of the Obasanjo administration worked to the extent of the efforts at projecting the administration’s interests and biases as being for universal good, in national interest and the dominant views, there emerged a contradiction.
The power and functions assigned the national network was sweeping and made it a big monopoly over television broadcast and production in the country. The functions listed in the decree establishing NTA stated that it was established:
- to erect, maintain and operate television transmitting and receiving stations;
- ensure the establishment and maintenance of standards and promote the efficient operation of the entire system in accordance with national policy;
- establish and operate a formula for sharing funds among stations;
- act as liaison between Federal Government and the zonal operations;
- plan and co-ordinate the activities of the entire television network;
- establish such number of production centres as it may consider necessary from time to time;
- specify the type of programmes which should be transmitted by the whole network and the quantity, type and contents of foreign materials;
- enter into arrangements with any person or any authority for the purpose of obtaining concessions, licenses, privileges and other rights;
- manufacture, produce, purchase, or otherwise acquire films, gramophone, and other mechanical records and materials and apparatus for use in connection with the broadcasting services;
- provide other persons with, and receive from them, matters to be broadcast;
- organize, provide and subsidize for the purpose of broadcasting, educational activities and public entertainment;
- collect in any part of the world and in a manner that may be thought fit both news and information and to subscribe to news agencies;
- acquire copyright;
- acquire public printed matter that may be conducive to advancing skills of persons employed in the broadcasting services, or the efficiency of the equipment used in the broadcasting services or the manner in which that equipment is operated, including the providing of the Authority or the others on its behalf of facilities for training, education and research.
Whoever it was that owned the original idea of the take over and creation of a monopoly in the broadcast media, especially the television must have done so on the infallibility of the notion of an all powerful media. This probably coupled with the impression that the media do not necessarily “act non-purposively to support the values dominant in a community or nation…”[10], but tends toward the confirmation of the status quo made the move more politically expedient. They though may not be progressive in their view definitely must have agreed with the Marx view that the class that owns or controls the means of production also owns or control the means of mental production.[11] The situation in Nigeria’s case though presents a different scenario other than that which Marx and Engel anticipated.
There actually wasn’t a productive ruling class in the classical sense. Even the parasitic ruling class that existed had been supplanted by the military due to what Claude Ake as lack of cohesiveness within the Nigeria upper class, reason being that Nigeria was and is still a “a terrain of conflicting identities”[12]
The national television that emerged from this exercise obviously conformed to the dream of the initiators of the take-over. It became uncritical in its support of the government and never made any pretence at critical or objective assessment of its new owners.
Though the NTA that emerged had in its employ some of the finest journalists, producers, presenters and other media workers that the continent could boast of, the network by the time Obasanjo was handing over to a new civilian regime in 1999 had become had become synonymous with sycophancy and government propaganda.
As some Marxist analysts would probably have put it, NTA then had gotten 'locked into the power structure,” and consequently act “largely in tandem with the dominant institutions in society.” The network thus “reproduced the viewpoints of dominant institutions not as one among a number of alternative perspectives, but as the central and ‘obvious’ or ‘natural’ perspective”[13]
Whatever trust people had in the television stations had been eroded and very few people will swear by whatever is broadcast on the television.
The notion of priming and agenda setting theorists that the media not only tell us what to think about, but what to think was made irrelevant by the attitude of people to NTA. Cynicism was rife and a government controlled media that started news with the “Head of State had announced”, had an interlude on “The Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarter had warned...”, resumed on The Chief Press Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief…” and ends the news on “And the Attorney General…” will definitely soon lose viewership.
The same fate, if not worse, befell radio broadcasts. As a veteran broadcaster, Patrick Obazele would recall, the radio was of particular interest to people in power.
“…not forgetting the impact of the radio during the Nigerian Civil War, each government of the day took steps to ensure that its activity were aired as they wanted. The situation was always aggravated by professional sycophants”[14]
Reprieve, Relief and stymied open space
Following the demise of the Obasanjo military regime in October 1979, an amendment was made to the NTA decree. The NTA Act that replaced it allowed states governments, organisations and individuals to establish broadcast stations. By the end of 1983, nine new television stations had been established by Ogun, Oyo, Anambra, Ondo, Bendel, Imo, Lagos, Plateau and Kano states.
What led to the establishment of radio and television stations by states governments was similar to the incident of 1953. “Under Shagari government (1979 – 83), the refusal of the federal government-controlled media to reflect opposition views led to the proliferation of electronic media in the states controlled by parties opposing the federal government”[15]
Though the broadcast stations that emerged were reincarnates of the old regional broadcasting corporations in their character, definition of news and accommodation of opposition views, people in the states that have their separate broadcast outlets had the opportunity of getting another view on contentious issues, even if not balanced views.
What this situation did however was to create room for politicians to create for themselves space in the contest for minds. It however never assure journalists and other media workers any breather. Rather than Press Freedom, what followed was further repression of freedom of the press and what a Catholic priest and political commentator; Matthew Hassan Kukah termed “Praise Freedom”[16]
A court judgement in a case filed by the Nigeria Union of Journalists NTA Ibadan chapel challenging a directive from NTA headquarters in Lagos prohibiting the Ibadan station from originating news on a N2.8 billion (then 3.4 billion dollars) missing oil money was indicative of how much freedom media workers could have.
The ruling by an Ibadan High Court in the suit had stated that the NTA as the station owners had constitutional right to determine how the station use, operate and determine news. The implication of this is that the owners of a broadcast station could determine what constitute news.[17]
In spite of the continued emergence of state owned broadcast media, the presence of federal stations was still felt. Their reach far outstrip that of the states’ and had exclusive rights to broadcast on more reliable VHF (for TV) and Short Wave bands (in the case of radio).
Whatever break in hegemony and accompanying freedom of expression that people thought democracy and the emergence of state governments’ broadcast stations would bring remained stymied. The sack of NTA’s Vera Ifudu[18] in the missing oil money report was to send signals on the seriousness of the state to determine what people hear or think.
Obasanjo and the New Concept of Media Liberalisation in the 4th Republic
Decree 38 of 1992 marked a significant development in broadcasting in Nigeria. Whereas, the 1979 constitution in Section 36(2) was self contradictory[19], the 1992 decree 38 was unambiguous in its opening up the broadcast space. The decree which established the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) conferred on it the among other things responsibility of “receiving, processing and considering applications for the ownership of radio and television stations including cable television services, direct satellite broadcast and any other medium of broadcasting.”
The Commission shortly after it was established issued radio and television licences to private operators for domestic transmission. The impact of this development was enormous. It changed the face of broadcasting in Nigeria, especially the television. First to be affected was what Biodun Sotumbi identified as the “placidity and predominance of government-related stories”[20] in the news. There now are alternatives that people could tune into.
This was more like a special gift to the Nigerian people from a military regime. It therefore would not be of too much assumption if there were expectations of a further democratisation of the airwaves in the fourth republic in Nigeria commencing from the inauguration of a civilian government on May 29, 1999. the federal government owned Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN) and the NTA still remained dominant. Most privately owned broadcast stations and those that belong to states governments are limited in their coverage. Many of them still have limitation in the quality of their production and professional standard among their staff.
The inauguration of the fourth republic came at a time media convergence is beginning to become manifest globally. Nigeria was not left out as people were beginning to have more access to several multimedia facilities. The grant of licence to GSM operators in the early days of the Obasanjo civilian regime also coincided with the growth and consolidation in the 2nd generation of GSM and investment in Europe and Asia in the research into 3rd generation GSM technology. This grant of licence, which had actually commenced during the military regime of General Sani Abacha, but was not pursued with deserved vigour, had raised more hope of a different Obasanjo media relation.
Changing face of the global media and regulation
Media has an unusual character in the fact of its activities being “inextricably both economic and political as well as being dependent on continually changing technologies of distribution”[21]
The above-stated unusual character of the media as identified by McQuail, also made it both a private and public venture. The public nature or character of the media as highlighted by McQuail “derives mainly from the the political function of the media in a democracy but also from the fact that information, culture and ideas are considered as the collective property of all”[22] in view of this, media re-regulation may not be viewed as a strange phenomenon. Even if there is not regulation of content, the fact of the transition from one epoch for instance in television broadcasting on the terrestrial to the cable and satellite would require some form of rewriting of rules or writing of new ones.[23]
In Nigeria, new government rules and exercise or re-invigoration of the existing rules however was not much in response of the social responsibility that McQuail anticipated.
Media liberalisation: the Obasanjo model
One of the efforts of Obasanjo government efforts at reaching the grassroots and getting the people involved in governance is overwhelming them with information.
Efforts in this direction as the government put it was in the form of media liberalisation.
The concept of media liberalisation as conceived by government was ensuring that the federal government owned FRCN and NTA has its presence in virtually every nook and cranny of the nation. While the government explanation appeared plausible, nobody was left in doubt the actual intent in priming, an extension of agenda setting, in which “news content suggests to news audiences that they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and governments.”[24]
The real intention of the state was not lost on the people. The move followed various attempts by the Obasanjo regime to browbeat the media to do its bidding and resistance to various attempts at intimidating it into following the dictate of the state.
The NTA response on behalf of the government in the period after the 2007 election gave more credence that the proliferation of the NTA stations was an unabashed attempt at media re-regulation in the country. Obviously, due to the new political climate and the global uproar following some attempts at reinventing his earlier mode of handling media, and following the new world reality, Obasanjo had found a new, and obviously more ingenious, method of re-regulating broadcasting in Nigeria, by dominating the airwaves with the NTA presence.
An understanding of the new form of hegemony perhaps better understood from the perspective of neo-Marxian theories in communication. Though several critics, in spite of the fact of historical materialism being an objective science had argued that Marxism is just another ideology, Marxist 'critical theory' in its ability to expose the myth of 'value-free' social science is also critical in understanding the intent of Obasanjo in controlling the mind of the people.
Marxist perspectives in drawing attention to the issue of political and economic interests in the mass media and highlighting social inequalities in media representations also provide the correlation between intended priming, the privatisation policy of Obasanjo administration and the several scandals of the process.
.
According to Daniel Chandler, “Marxism helps to situate media texts within the larger social formation. Its focus on the nature of ideology helps us to deconstruct taken-for-granted values. Ideological analysis helps us to expose whose reality we are being offered in a media text”[25]
References
1. Daramola, Ifedayo (2006), History and Development of Mass Media in Nigeria; Lagos, Rothan Press Ltd.
2. Brenda Downes and Steve (1998) Mills, Media Studies London: Hodder pg 26 as quoted by Ayo Olukotun (2005) Repressive State and Resurgent Media under Nigeria’s Military Dictatorship, 1988-98 Ibadan Nigeria: College Press & Publishers Ltd. Pg 19
3. Ismail Ibrahim & Tunde Akanni (Ed.) (1996) The Mass Media and Democracy; Lagos, Civil Liberty Organisation.
4. Charles C. Umeh (1989) “The Advent and Growth of Television Broadcasting in Nigeria: Its Political and Educational Undertone” Africa Media Review Vol. 3 No. 2. pg 54 - 66
5. Denis McQuail (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, London, (fifth edition) Sage Publications Ltd.
6. Karl Marx and Engel German Ideology
7. Claude Ake (2001) Democracy and Development in Africa, Ibadan, Spectrum Books Limited.
8. Curran, James, Michael Gurevitch & Janet Woollacott (1982): 'The study of the media: theoretical approaches'. In Gurevitch, Michael, Tony Bennett, James Curran & Janet Woollacott (Ed.) (1982): Culture, Society and the Media. London: Methuen (Part 1, 'Class, Ideology and the Media')
9. Olatunji Dare, Adidi Uyo (Ed.) Journalism in Nigeria: Issues and Perspectives (1996) Nigeria Union of Journalists, Lagos State Council. Lagos.
10. Clement Nwankwo, Frank Aigbogun, Eluem Emeka Izeze and Dulue Mbachu (1993) The Crisis of Press Freedom in Nigeria. Lagos, Constitutional Rights Project. pg 31
11. See details in Patrick Obazele op cit. & Clement Nwankwo et al op cit.
12. 1979 Nigerian Constriction
2007
[1] Daramola, Ifedayo (2006), History and Development of Mass Media in Nigeria; Lagos, Rothan Press Ltd. Pg 132
[2] Ibid pg 133
[3] The decree stated that (The authority shall to the exclusion of any other broadcasting authority or any person in Nigeria be responsible for television broadcasting”
[4] Brenda Downes and Steve (1998) Mills, Media Studies London: Hodder pg 26 as quoted by Ayo Olukotun (2005) Repressive State and Resurgent Media under Nigeria’s Military Dictatorship, 1988-98 Ibadan Nigeria: College Press & Publishers Ltd. Pg 19
[5] Adidi Uyo “The Electronic Media and Social Change” in Ismail Ibrahim & Tunde Akanni (Ed.) (1996) The Mass Media and Democracy; Lagos, Civil Liberty Organisation. Pg 108 - 112
[6] Egbon, M.I. (1982). "Origin and Development of Television Broadcasting in Nigeria'.Television Journal. Ending December 1982, pp. 4-4, 27-28.as quoted by Charles C. Umeh (1989) “The Advent and Growth of Television Broadcasting in Nigeria: Its Political and Educational Undertone” Africa Media Review Vol. 3 No. 2. pg 54 - 66
[7] The DailyTimes (November 2, 1959), as quoted by Charles C. Umeh (op cit), carried a front page report of the inauguration of the new Western Nigerian Television service in Ibadan. Chief Awolowo said in his speech that the venture was initiated because the Regional Government was convinced that it could play a major role in increasing both the pace and standard of education which was regarded as the key to progress in other fields. He said that it was the aim of his government to bring information about development in Nigeria and in the outside world into the people's homes so that they might benefit from that knowledge. He declared that 'television will serve as teacher and entertainer and as a stimulus to us all to transform Nigeria into a modern and prosperous nation'. This educational task might be performed through formal educational programmes for schools and less formal programmes for adults. Political motivation notwithstanding, the Western Nigeria
Television venture took off successfully and became the pride of the entire Region and the nation.
[8] Egbon M.I op cit pg 7
[9] Adegbokun, D. (1983). 'Nigerian Television Authority'. Television Journal 2nd Quarter. April-June, OD. 3-5.as quoted in Charles Umeh op cite
[10] Denis McQuail (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, London, (fifth edition) Sage Publications Ltd. Pg 495
[11] Karl Marx and Engel in the German Ideology
[12] Claude Ake (2001) Democracy and Development in Africa, Ibadan, Spectrum Books Limited. Pg 67
[13] Curran, James, Michael Gurevitch & Janet Woollacott (1982): 'The study of the media: theoretical approaches'. In Gurevitch, Michael, Tony Bennett, James Curran & Janet Woollacott (Ed.) (1982): Culture, Society and the Media. London: Methuen (Part 1, 'Class, Ideology and the Media')
[14] Patrick Obazele “Challenges of Radio Journalism and Management of Broadcasting in Nigeria” in Olatunji Dare, Adidi Uyo (Ed.) Journalism in Nigeria: Issues and Perspectives (1996) Nigeria Union of Journalists, Lagos State Council. Lagos. Pg 150
[15] Clement Nwankwo, Frank Aigbogun, Eluem Emeka Izeze and Dulue Mbachu (1993) The Crisis of Press Freedom in Nigeria. Lagos, Constitutional Rights Project. pg 31
[16] Matthew Hassan Kukah “Public Perception of the Press in Nigeria” in Olatunji Dare, Adidi Uyo (Ed.) op cit. pg 139 - 140
[17] Clement Nwankwo et al op cit. pg 30
[18] See details in Patrick Obazele op cit. & Clement Nwankwo et al op cit.
[19] The provision of the section 36(2) had stated that “every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any media for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions provided that no person, other than the government of the federation or of a state or any other person or body authorised by the President, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for any purpose whatever”
[20] Biodun Sotunmbi “The Challenges of Television Journalism” in Olatuji Dare, Adidi Uyo (Eds.) op cit. pg 177
[21] Denis McQuail op cit. pg 218
[22] ibid
[23] Ibid pg 220
[24] Daniel Chandler (1996) Marxist Media Theory
[25] ibid