Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Proverbs 26: 4 - 5).

Once again, the media is agog with allegations of assault on freedom of speech. In this age of Citizen Journalism, such an assault, real or imagined, is also seen as an assault on journalists and press freedom, even when many of those involved may not be professional journalists in the real sense of the word. In this age of social media, it has become very difficult to define who is a journalist and who is not.

Even when those involved can lay claim to having seen the four walls of a media organisation or having conducted interviews or read news on television and radio, quackery, half-baked as well as fake journalists are a headache to dyed-in-the-wool journalists these days.

Everyone who has an android phone and can string one or two sentences together, however poorly constructed, can claim to be a journalist. This was the kind of bastardisation of “Socialism” in their own days that made Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels recoil from calling their manifesto “The Socialist Manifesto”, naming it “The Communist Manifesto” instead.

When I consider some of the persons who parade as journalists these days, biblical Nabal’s words echo in my ears as apprentices (for those of them who even ventured near a media house) who graduate themselves before their due date for “freedom”. Nabal’s exact words: “There be servants now a days that break away every man from his master…”; but we all must carry the can for them!

Many of the acts that trigger so-called assaults on press freedom are the unprofessional conduct (overzealousness, political partisanship, quackery and corruption) of desperate journalists and their Citizen Journalism counterparts. I am yet to see dyed-in-the-wool journalists of my own generation or those before and after making the egregious errors that viciously violate the ethics of the profession!

Now, what is press freedom? According to Wikipedia, “Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the fundamental principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely”. Other definitions say press freedom is “the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government”. Thus, press freedom “protects the right to spread thoughts, ideas, news and views by publishing them”.

While press freedom may be seen by many as freedom allowed exclusively to journalists or media persons but exercised on behalf and in the interest of all, freedom of speech and of expression is more omnibus as it bestows rights on everyone and these include “the right to hold opinions and to express them and the right to the free flow of information and ideas across borders through any media”.

Section 39 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees the freedom of expression as follows: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impact ideas and information without interference”.

Unknown to many, however, there are no freedoms or liberties without obligations or restrictions. Your freedom must be exercised responsibly; otherwise, you may run yourself into trouble or the society itself may become ungovernable - like a Hobbesian “state of nature… of the war of all against all”! Your rights stop where those of others start! This is where many people, especially those not grounded in the ethics of the journalism profession, miss it.

Many people “practise” as journalists today without proper training. You cannot just don the wig and gown and walk into a courtroom and begin to operate as a lawyer without first acquiring the requisite training. So also can you not just hang a stethoscope and don a lab coat and saunter into a hospital and begin to perform surgical operation! But that is what many people who claim to be “journalists” do today!

You are not a journalist simply because you are a lawyer; you have a flair for writing; you love the profession or you have a mastery of the English Language! There are basic rules, tenets, and ethics of the profession that you must first learn. And you must take your time to be really “cooked’, as it were. Many of the cases that have landed some so-called journalists in trouble are as a result of the elementary rules that they never learned, such as: Is it the truth? Am I being fair to all? Have I acted professionally? Am I not serving or being used by vested interests? Is the story libelous? Will it run my organisation into trouble?

A reporter is as good as his source; facts are sacred, opinion is free; if in doubt, leave out; you must hear from the other side(s) to balance your story; the 4 W’s (what, when, where, why) and how of the story. Is it in the public interest? Does it endanger national security? Does it offend public or ethical sensibilities? These days, none of these count for those intent on settling scores; who are making skits to make money; who are hunting down political opponents or who want to write and publish just anything to make some dough to make ends meet.

If you are interested in the Journalism profession, there is no offence! Go to school and learn! There are many universities, polytechnics and monotechnics teaching Mass Communication or Journalism courses all over the country. For the professional journalists practising according to laid down rules and regulations, faithfully abiding by the ethics of the profession; they have enough constitutional backing and protection.

It is not for fun that they are called “the Fourth Estate of the Realm”; the three other estates being the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Chapter 2 section 22 of the Constitution entitled “Obligation of the mass media” states 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 responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people”.

In short, the media is empowered by the Constitution, the highest law of the land, to hold the Government accountable to the people. Which is why the media is also called the “watchdog”. There is also the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 which seeks to make public information more accessible to the public by granting access to such information to the media and other interested persons.

Section 39 of the Constitution protects Citizen Journalists who operate largely on social media - but there are also rules moderating that space and you ignore them at your own peril. For instance, there is a law that criminalises what they call cyberbullying.

Yes, none of the laws that protects is as emphatic as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states unequivocally that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”; the real problem here, however, is that even the existing constitutional provisions protecting and promoting press freedom or freedom of expression are observed more in their breach than in their observance. The FOI is a case in point.

If we have here leaders like the third US President Thomas Jefferson, the laws in our statute books are more than adequate to guarantee press freedom and freedom of expression. Jefferson it was who said: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” Yet, this was a man the American media gave no breathing space!

Now, recent assault on publicly-outspoken Nigerians, among them journalists, has raised concern as to whether press freedom and freedom of expression are under attack. Are these assaults consistent and systematic? And for what purpose? Are the victims carefully selected? Are they those who speak out against the Government and is the assault meant primarily to punish, pulverize and silence them as well as intimidate others in the clear and unambiguous message the assaults send?

For me, it is too early to jump into that conclusion. There are many journalists and outspoken individuals pouring venom on this Government - but doing so professionally and fantastically - and they have not been touched. Which is where professionalism comes into play!

No one in his right senses will say that anyone that commits an offence should not be called in. What I disapprove of is the crude, Gestapo style often adopted by the security forces. Abductions and uncivil rendition of citizens, denying responsibility afterwards while keeping the victims in solitary confinement, is not only dangerous and worrisome but also barbaric. To make matters worse is the fact that they are then released after public outcry without anything incriminating being found against them!

Why arrest them in the first place? If you have suspicions or questions to ask, invite them, interrogate them in the presence of their lawyers, treat them decently, keep within the confines of the law and allow courts of competent jurisdiction to do their job. Security agents should not dabble in civil matters or constitute themselves into courts - which they are not. Instead, let the aggrieved go to court to seek redress. That was what Femi Okunnu did with Wole Soyinka in 1978 over his book “The Man Died”.

In the specific case of Chief Afe Babalola versus Dele Farotimi, I am of the opinion that the Chief has the right to complain and seek redress, although I think by now we should have distanced ourselves from colonial-era laws of sedition and defamation used by Imperial Britain to cower Nigerian nationalists in their struggle for Independence. Note that Chief Afe's grouse, like Okunnu's, originates from the puɓlication of a book by Farotimi.

By now my readers must have accepted the fact that I love quoting scriptures - like the one that opened this discussion! Consider another: Apostle Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians 6: 12 that “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”

I never heard of Farotimi’s book until Chief Afe’s complaint engendered Farotimi’s arrest and detention. Now, the Chief has unwittingly helped to promote Farotimi and his book. Should the Chief have kept quiet and ignored Farotimi and his book, including whatever it contains? If he does, silence can be taken to mean consent.

Yet, there is another saying that there are occasions when silence is golden! Which, then, is which, in this case? Answer a fool; do not answer a fool as stated in the quotation above! Tough decisions! But the Chief has chosen the path of seeking redress. Much thought and deliberation must have gone into that decision. With his pedigree, age and wealth of experience, the Chief is not likely to take critical decisions without having considered the pros and cons.

The petition Chief Afe Babalola fired to the police was self-evident. His credentials as espoused therein were intimidating. There is no doubt he is a highly revered public figure and role model. If he chooses not to allow the achievements of a life-time to go up in flames, no one should grudge him. The catch here, however, is that being a public fugure and role model makes him a subject of public interest. His life is an open book for all to peruse.

On the opposing side, Farotimi has said he is ready for the legal battle of his life. If you ask me, I will say he has more than Mount Everest to climb! The allegations he levied are so weighty and whichever of the two sides that fails to prove its case must be visited with the severest sanction possible. More than Afe or Farotimi, the judiciary that is on trial in this case is touted as “the last hope of the common man” and if gold rusts, what will iron do?

Perhaps this case will settle more than the Farotimi issue. I once listened to a very senior SAN also grumble about the Chief. Is this another Tan'fe-a-ni or pull him down syndrome at work? That is understandable: A kii moo rin ki ori ma ji. No how, no do: the head must shake on the neck! No one achieves anything without stepping on toes.

But my suspicion is, in the final analysis, both the super dog (Afe) and the under dog (Farotimi) will gain something while also losing something. Street sympathy and support for the underdog and pyrrhic victory for the super dog! So, let the battle be joined and let scores be settled once and for all! Let anyone with an axe to grind come into the open now - or forever keep their peace! And allow Chief Afe Babalola his well-deserved place in history!