Imagine a Rivers State where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu hesitated to declare a state of emergency. The political standoff between the State Assembly and Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have continued and degenerated into violence. Impeachment threats might have spurred attacks on lawmakers by the Governor’s supporters, while militants in the creeks—primed to sabotage critical oil infrastructure—could have plunged Nigeria’s oil production back to pre-2023 lows. Sensational reporting of the crisis by journalists and opportunistic litigation would have inflamed tensions further, paralysing governance and risking lives. Schools and hospitals would shutter; investors would flee. We can only imagine the human and economic toll.

Thanks to the President’s intervention, Rivers State can breathe again today. Political tensions have eased, banal headlines have quietened, and stakeholders—encouraged by the newly appointed administrator—are charting a path to lasting peace. Critics who argue the crisis “did not yet warrant” an emergency rule ignore a stark truth: waiting for the breakdown of law and order to escalate into anarchy before acting is like withholding firefighters until a house burns to ashes. 

A responsible leader like President Tinubu, who swore an oath to protect the constitution and corporate existence of the country, can not fail to act when a constituent part of the Federation is careering towards the precipice. The political crisis in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the State House of Assembly who owe allegiance to the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that blew open barely six months into the administration of the Governor has degenerated by 18 March. A chain of events since the war of attrition started 14 months ago among the combatants had indeed paralysed the government of Rivers State to the point where Fubara, copying from the bad book of former Governor Obaseki in Edo, emasculated an arm of government entirely. This reality informed the Supreme Court’s damning verdict about the absence of government in the State as enshrined in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, as amended. The court also excoriated Fubara for acting like a despot.

Rivers was in a grave situation, as the combatants refused to allow reason to prevail, even after the Supreme Court judgment,  before President Tinubu declared a state of emergency on 18 March. The President took action in the best interest of the people of the State, who had become victims of the warring politicians, the people they elected to serve them. President Tinubu needed to act. He chose prevention over cure.

Section 305 of Nigeria’s Constitution empowers the President to act when the nation faces a breakdown of law, order, and economic security —precisely the case in Rivers, a bastion of Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. Intelligence confirmed militants, told by Fubara to await signals, were already targeting pipelines, risking a collapse in output and a Niger-Delta domino effect. Historical precedents, such as the past emergencies in Plateau and Borno and the doctrine of necessity, support the President’s proactive measures to avert disaster. The President’s oath demands he must not fail in his sacred duty to safeguard national stability, not watch idly as partisan strife strangles our democracy and the material well-being of Nigerians, whose prosperity depends on the social and economic interdependence of every part of the country. Rivers State is a significant hydrocarbon economic artery in Nigeria, and any dislocation and politically motivated disruption of the State’s oil industry have ripple effects on the national economy.

Answering the Critics: 

Critics claim the emergency rule in Rivers undermines democracy. Their position misrepresents reality. The intervention is temporary, surgical, and aimed at restoring—not replacing—democratic institutions. The suspension of political actors for six months is no power grab; it is not a permanent removal but a reset to disarm warring factions. Notably, the same critics who assailed the President’s action for suspending the political actors remain silent on Governor Fubara’s refusal to collaborate with the legislature, exposing their partisan bias. Democracy can not thrive amid lawlessness—anarchy is its antithesis.

The appointed administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas (Rtd.), has already convened a meeting with traditional leaders,  one of his first steps to forge lasting solutions. This intervention ensures Rivers’ people retain their democratic rights while shielding the Nigerian and Rivers State economies from collapse. It is worth repeating that President Tinubu acted within the law and his executive powers under the constitution until the  Supreme Court says otherwise. 

President Tinubu and the National Assembly remain committed to lifting the emergency once stability returns and ensuring elected officials resume their duties.

The 18th-century English philosopher Edmund Burke once warned, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” President Tinubu chose courage over complacency. His action prioritised Nigeria’s interest over political expediency, averting a more profound crisis. To those who brand him a democrat turned “tyrant,” my response to them is simple:  Which democracy prospers in chaos? Rivers’ newfound calm vindicates President Tinubu’s resolve. He deserves commendation, not condemnation, not calumny for his statesmanship. Rivers and Nigeria are safer for it.

-Onanuga is the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

– Gideon J. Tucker

A Governor Bola Tinubu of Lagos would not vacate his seat for anyone appointed illegally from Abuja – or from anywhere. If the heavens wanted to fall, he would ask them to fall. He would not go hide somewhere in his wife’s handbag, and from the safety of his ghetto be issuing gutless press releases. If Abuja insisted on his suspension, he would mobilise the law and lawyers for eruptions of seismic proportions. He would ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the president could sack or suspend elected governors, appoint caretaker governors and take over the role of state Houses of Assembly. He would ask the apex court to reconcile this case with its earlier verdict which outlawed caretaker governments for one of our tiers of government. He would put everything he had into the mix; he would count the teeth of the tiger in Abuja. But Rivers is not Lagos, and Siminalayi Fubara is not Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The difference between both is the difference between courage and cowardice.

Until Saturday when he spoke on the Rivers State problem, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan walked the terrace of power with utmost carefulness. He avoided speaking truth to power the way the barefooted avoids walking a floor of broken glass. But on Saturday, he came out of his zone of reticence, and dared the dark, dangerous sherds of impunity. Jonathan spoke following President Bola Tinubu’s deployment of a Supreme Court judgment to meddle with and seize control of the nuts and bolts of our federation. In a fit of daring, calculative move for political advantage, Tinubu suspended democracy on a floor of the structure. And days after the act, without a whim of resistance, he got legislative approval for the mess. He left no one in doubt that all the powers and principalities of this realm are with him and that they work for him. 

The three arms of government in Nigeria have become a triangular cult of iniquity. If the executive is after you, the other two quickly join in the clobbering. Jonathan identified the spring head of the problem. He saw: “a clear abuse of office, clear abuse of power, clear abuse of privileges, cutting across the three arms of government — from the executive through the parliament and to the judiciary.” Now, when those three institutions of democracy become citadels of abuse, what remains and what is next for us?

Yesterday, 23 March, 2025, was the 92nd anniversary of the enactment of Germany’s Enabling Act which gave Adolf Hitler the power to make laws without parliamentary approval. 

Nazi Germany had a parliament known as the Reichstag. The decay and destruction of that institution started in very innocuous bits, very small. It took off by saying yes to everything the leader did or took before it. The parliament members, incrementally, thought the leader deserved not their check, but their cheeks. Reichstag began its descent and quickened its suicide by enacting laws without any real debate or opposition. Then it took many other self-destruct steps; the climax came on 23 March, 1933, when Reichstag passed the historic Enabling Act transferring its powers and functions to the head of the executive. 

In this Rivers matter, the Supreme Court cast the foundation, the president laid the blocks, the legislature roofed the edifice of an emerging autocracy. Jonathan spoke on the executive dictating judgments to judges. He described Nigeria as a country where “government functionaries can dictate to judges what judgment they will give.” That was a huge one. We expect a reaction or denial from the judiciary now or never. The ex-president also spoke on the operatives of the three branches of government not giving a damn as the country burned. He said they were feigning sleep while a flood of badness swept through the land. What he spoke on was the treachery of the judiciary and the perfidy of the legislature, both of which act as palace courtiers, and as whores of benefit who have surrendered their functions, power and glory to the president. 

Checks and balances. How often do we ask what they are and why they are at the core of this democracy? Destruction of checks and balances creates excesses that take rest of mind away from the society. Absolute power creates all the antonyms of peace and stability. It makes the nation the ultimate sick man on a roller coaster. It was exactly so for Hitler and his Germany. The Nazi leader, on 23 March, 1933, got the powers to make laws. The ease with which he got it made him think it was time for further consolidation. Thus, on 7 April, 1933, the leader put officials of his political party in charge of all local governments. On 14 July, 1933, Reichstag became a one-party parliament. January 1934, the ruling party took over all state governments. On 19 August, 1934, the leader announced himself president, chancellor and head of the army. The Fuhrer was born! 

Our National Assembly would act Reichstag if it had not done so already. It spent the whole of last weekend denying taking bribes to approve the president’s illegal suspension of democracy in Rivers State. Our multi party Senate has 109 members; the House of Representatives has 360, elected from various parties. Yet, on a very critical day last week, members of the parliament collapsed their structures into a single party; they endorsed illegality with a single voice. The president suspended democracy, appointed and swore in a viceroy to serve as governor. He declared a state of emergency without parliament’s prior approval. He usurped the powers of the legislators and the legislators endorsed the usurpation without following the law. They used voice votes to announce that he was right! 

Treachery has no other definition. What does it cost a leader to be told the truth? President Bola Tinubu himself called for truth two weeks ago. He told Catholic Bishops who paid him a visit that they should tell him the truth whenever he was missing the way: “I’m here open to you, ready to listen…I won’t shut my door,” he said. But he made that request to the wrong audience. The right audience for that demand is the National Assembly, a conglomerate of dank agents. They are his enemy. He also acts his own enemy, redacting his own records of resistance and activism. 

Abuse of any power will happen where there are no checks. With the help of the legislature and the judiciary, Prime Minister Balewa abused the emergency law of his time. Olusegun Obasanjo did same. And, despite all the political and legal repercussions of what Balewa and Obasanjo did, Tinubu learnt nothing and has also done it. He now sits back, watches and smiles as we fret. 

The president and all who cheer him would remember that this presidential democracy is not our creation. We copied it from America. And if they agree that we copied this system from the US, have they ever found out why an American president has never tried to suspend or remove a state governor under any pretext, including under emergencies which are provided for under their own laws? It is because US governors are not boys of the president, and both sides know this to be legally and historically correct. 

Where the law is allowed to work, there are always consequences for aberrant behaviour. Whatever is happening in Donald Trump’s America today, the fact is that the US Congress had historically managed to contain the excesses of presidents who thought they were king. I cite an example:

President Andrew Johnson took over as US president following the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But Johnson does not enjoy as much favours of history as Lincoln does. Why? 

President Johnson ran into problems because of his Kabiyesi stance on procedural and constitutional issues. On August 5, 1867, Johnson asked Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton to resign because the secretary disagreed with him over Reconstruction plans. The man refused to resign. The president gave him a week of grace, the man remained recalcitrant; then the president suspended him on August 12 without the approval of the Congress. 

Four months after that act (December 12), the president submitted his reasons for suspending Secretary Stanton to the Senate. On January 13, 1868, Senate refused to approve Johnson’s suspension of Stanton. The following day, the man who had been acting as Interim Secretary of War, Ulysses S. Grant, informed President Johnson that in view of Senate’s decision, he was vacating his post for the rightful owner, Stanton. He left.

Stubborn President Johnson, on February 21, 1868 in gross violation of the Tenure of Office Act, formally removed Stanton and gave the control of the War Department to General Lorenzo Thomas. With the law behind him, sacked Stanton glared down President Johnson’s decision. For the next two months, he stayed put, he slept and woke up (holed up) in his cabinet office, barricading himself in there.

The US Congress watched with consternation as the president usurped its powers. It saw what the president did as a blatant violation of the Tenure of Office Act. It proceeded to commence an impeachment process against the Commander-in-Chief. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted 126-47 to impeach Johnson. 

On March 5, 1868, the Senate began its impeachment trial with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Johnson. The figure was, however, one vote short of the necessary two-third majority to get the man sacked. On May 26, 1868, the Senate gave the president a reprieve, it voted to acquit the president on two of the charges. It then adjourned and never voted on the remaining eight articles of impeachment. 

Johnson escaped sack but the damage had been done. It was effectively the ‘end’ of Johnson as president. He never recovered. 

On 11 July, 2024, Nigeria’s Supreme Court declared that state governors had no power to sack elected local government chairmen and councilors and constitute caretaker committees to run the local governments. The court further declared that a local government council was only recognisable with a democratically elected government.

“A democratically elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,’’ the apex court declared. 

The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who was the plaintiff in that case saluted the Supreme Court for delivering justice. He said the judgment had effectively ended the practice of governors replacing democracy with autocracy by wantonly sacking elected council bosses and replacing them with unelected caretaker committees. 

On Wednesday, 19 March, 2025, the same Fagbemi addressed a press conference in Abuja endorsing President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of a caretaker governor for Rivers State and the suspension of democratic structures there. “A lawyer’s truth is not the truth” (David Henry Thoreau). 

Fagbemi is supposed to know (and he knows) that there is nothing like ‘suspension’ of governor or ‘suspension’ of the legislature in our constitution which governs all other laws and everything about our democracy. But he went further to threaten other governors with the fate of Fubara. He hinted them not to dare dare his boss: “It is Rivers State’s turn today, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow, let the signal be clearly sent to those who want to foment trouble, who want to make the practice of democracy and the enjoyment of dividends of democracy a mirage to think twice.” In other words, when you slaughter a goat in the presence of another goat, the living will be sober; it will behave well. 

But wait. If the emergency rule is declared by the president over the whole country, will he appoint himself sole administrator and suspend the National Assembly? Or who rules? 

To Nigeria’s chief law officer, under an emergency rule, the president can become the electorate deciding who governs and who ceases to govern. He can also be the people of any or all the states; voters in INEC registers would become Shakespeare’s “blocks, stones …worse than senseless things.” 

From the courts to the president’s office to the office of the Attorney-General, to the parliament, we could see the futility in hoping for acting right and talking straight. An incestuous triangle of the three arms or what David Wyatt called a “tyrannizing unity” of the powers, reigns. 

Their ways remind us of a favourite passage in Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’: “You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator. That laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them.”

Emergency rule started in Rome around the 3rd century BC. The Romans used the law to create what they called ‘office of the dictator’ to solve specific public (safety) problems. They had two main categories of such. The first they named the dictatura rei gerundae causa (dictatorship for getting things done). The second was dictatura seditionis sedandae causa (dictatorship for suppressing civil insurrection). The Romans did not, however, create the emergency rules and laws for free roamers to exploit. They limited the dictators’ term to six months. They also struggled to contain abuse of their powers. But, apparently because of abuses such as we saw last week in Nigeria, the Roman senate took direct control of resolving crises. It replaced the office of dictator with what was called ‘Ultimate Decree of the Senate’ (senatus consultum ultimum). The present controversy presents us an opportunity to also rethink our emergency law and everything connected with it.

Strong, uncontrollable leaders always put their nations in trouble. Keeping quiet, excusing their excesses or enabling their illegality put everyone in danger. Where big men reign above the law and below decency, people pay for what they did not buy. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini was created and nurtured by a culture of acquisence. His appointment as Prime Minister in 1922 was approved despite his party holding only 35 seats out of 535 in the parliament. With intimidation and harassment of voters, his party pushed up its figure to 374 seats in the April 1924 election. In January 1925, Mussolini, right inside the parliament, declared himself dictator. The legislators heard him and applauded him. They proceeded to grant him more powers. They passed laws that dissolved opposition parties and shut down free press. Mussolini dismantled democratic institutions that won’t let him breathe and emit fire. He got the constitutionally recognised Chamber of Deputies, Italy’s equivalent of our House of Representatives, replaced by something called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, a body controlled by his Fascist Party. He made the parliament in his image transforming it for his use in outlawing the opposition and the law.

The National Assembly that sat last week in Abuja may go that way unless Kabiyesi, our president, does not want it to.

Democracy is often cast as the antithesis of authoritarian rule — a beacon of liberty standing firm against the shadows of oppression. Yet, history tells a more intricate tale. Authoritarian regimes rarely storm the gates; instead, they slip quietly through the corridors of power, emerging not as abrupt usurpers but as offspring of the very systems meant to guard against them. In our modern age, the fall of democracy is seldom marked by a single, violent coup. It is a slow, insidious unravelling — the steady decay of institutions, the quiet bending of norms. It is the gradual surrender of freedom, handed over piece by piece, often in the name of rule of law or security. Thus, the path to autocracy is not carved by force alone but paved with the very stones once laid to uphold democracy.

Authoritarianism, unlike ancient times, does not emerge like a light switch. So, we can rightly say that the intersection of democracy and authoritarianism is gradual. This gradual shift from democracy to authoritarianism is often enabled. In Nigeria, there is growing concern among political analysts that the country is witnessing the rise of authoritarian tendencies within its democratic institutions. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been accused of manipulating democratic processes to consolidate power. Therefore, the question is not whether authoritarianism is looming but how it is being enabled and perpetuated. Urgent action is needed to prevent further erosion of democratic norms. 

Political analysts have argued that a significant tool to rein in most political actors is economic instability and impoverishment, which causes them to switch to survival mode. Nigeria’s social and economic conditions have created an ecosystem that makes manipulating democratic institutions easier than before. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been particularly instrumental in this erosion, using its enormous financial power to control the political class and, which is mainly in a survival mode and has no option but to become pliant to partake of the largesse of executive economic power.

Besides, poverty has been weaponised, and many people are either busy fighting to earn a living or just nonchalant about confronting a democratic government that is gradually sliding into authoritarianism. This ecosystem is on full display today in Nigeria. It only takes a political leadership interested in the benefits of authoritarianism to activate these enablers. The ruling APC has so much power to manipulate the democratic systems unchecked and with impunity.  

Common enablers of authoritarianism are a rubber-stamp legislature, a compromised judiciary, and an impotent civil society, particularly a labour movement that has lost its virility. Other enablers include a media that prioritises propaganda and economic gains over national interest and, elite greed. A critical examination of how these enablers play out in our country today will help us appreciate the democratic backslide we are experiencing.

A functional legislature serves as a critical check on executive power. However, Nigeria’s National Assembly has increasingly become subservient to the executive. A legislature can enable autocracy either by deliberate design or by default. By default, rampant corruption among lawmakers has compromised the integrity of legislative oversight. Legislators fail to challenge executive overreach due to personal financial interests. Deliberately, if a dominant political party has an authoritarian agenda, it can use the legislature to rubber-stamp executive decisions. A subservient legislature is a National Assembly that goes against the constitutional procedure in every respect to please the Sovereign.

With its control of both legislative houses, the APC has weakened parliamentary independence. One of the most blatant examples of legislative subservience is the unconstitutional use of a voice vote in determining a two-thirds majority, as seen in critical decisions, such as approving President Tinubu’s emergency proclamations. The reasons are clear. Section 305(2) & (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) states that at least two-thirds must approve an emergency proclamation of all members of each House (Senate and House of Representatives). A voice vote (where members say “Aye” or “Nay”) cannot accurately count the required two-thirds majority. Democracy in its pure form is about counting numbers. 

When a supermajority (such as two-thirds) is required, a recorded vote is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional requirement. The Senate and House Standing Orders typically require a roll call or electronic voting system to determine numerical compliance for such critical decisions. A voice vote is insufficient for determining a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly for an emergency proclamation. A formal recorded vote must be conducted to confirm the exact number of lawmakers in support. 

So, the procedure adopted by the House of Representatives and Senate in approving President Tinubu’s Proclamation is wrong. You cannot determine 2/3rds in a voice vote. It is both illegal and undemocratic. Hussaini Abdu aptly captures the state of the legislature: “The National Assembly has long abandoned its role as a representative body meant to hold the executive accountable. Instead, it has devolved into a transactional arena where self-enrichment and power negotiations take precedence over democratic responsibility.”

The judiciary, as the last line of defence for democracy, is expected to uphold the rule of law. However, judicial decisions in Nigeria have increasingly been seen as influenced by personal and external interests rather than strict legal principles. Corrupt judges deliver judgments that favour those in power. Political infiltration of judicial institutions has eroded public trust in the judiciary. Judicial interpretations are frequently skewed to justify undemocratic actions. A notable case was the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Rivers State crisis that dumbfounded many legal experts and the public and exacerbated the political embroglio in the state that led to the president’s declaration of a state of emergency. When the judiciary ceases to be independent, democratic governance crumbles, leaving citizens with no recourse for justice. In Nigeria, there is a widespread belief that judicial rulings—especially in election disputes—are determined by political and financial considerations rather than legal merit.

A robust civil society is essential for holding government accountable. However, Nigeria’s civil society has suffered from a severe decline in effectiveness due to various factors. There is a total breakdown of the structures that enable citizens to organise, advocate, and hold power accountable. The absence of nationalistic political consciousness has fragmented advocacy efforts. Many civil society groups have been co-opted by political elites, diluting their activism. The legacy of prominent activists like Gani Fawehinmi, Hajia Gambo Sawaba, Chima Ubani, and Pa E.K. Clark is fading, with few emerging leaders willing to take up the mantle of resistance. Prof Wole Soyinka has gone past his prime. Olisa Agbakoba  

and Femi- Falana have done their bit. Where is the successor generation of activists? Without an organised and vibrant civil society, authoritarian tendencies can flourish unchecked, as there is little resistance from the populace. The need for a strong civil society is more pressing than ever.

Labour unions have historically played a crucial role in resisting authoritarian regimes. However, Nigeria’s Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have become increasingly toothless. The government has effectively neutralised the power of labour unions through economic pressures and divide-and-rule tactics. The NLC’s repeated failure to execute nationwide strikes has eroded its credibility. In 2023, despite multiple announcements of planned nationwide strikes to protest fuel subsidy removal and inflation, the strikes were either suspended or ineffective due to government interference. Abiodun Oluwadare captures it this way: “The NLC’s inability to deliver on its threats and repeated backing down from strikes have led to a loss of public trust. This makes mass mobilisation difficult, allowing governments and businesses to ignore its demands.” Labour has not since 2023 successfully influenced the government to change its position on any matter of public interest.

A free press is a fundamental pillar of democracy. However, Nigerian media has increasingly prioritised propaganda and financial interests over journalistic integrity. Many media houses align with political or ethnic factions, reducing objectivity. Journalists are often financially compromised into silence. Government-friendly narratives dominate mainstream media, limiting access to dissenting views. This erosion of media independence has led to a public that is either misinformed or deliberately kept in the dark about crucial national issues.

Aso Rock is interested in controlling all “levers of power” often overshadowing other arms of government. This concentration of power has led to reduced institutional checks and balances, presidential interest overriding legislative decisions. Nigeria is seeing a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies in silencing dissenting voices. A full-fledged authoritarian regime is only a matter of time. Nigeria has become less liberal over the last two years, thanks to the manipulation of critical institutions of democracy. The judiciary frequently validates undemocratic actions under legal pretexts, and lawmakers serve executive interests rather than the electorate.

The enablers of authoritarianism are well-entrenched in Nigeria’s political landscape. A weak legislature, a compromised judiciary, a fragmented civil society, an ineffective labour movement, and a politicised media have all contributed to the country’s democratic decline. The unchecked concentration of power in the presidency has further exacerbated this trend. Urgent action is needed to safeguard Nigeria’s democracy. Strengthening institutional independence to prevent executive overreach, reviving civil society, re-establishing activist movements to demand accountability, ensuring media objectivity and independence, and encouraging active citizen participation in governance. 

Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires constant vigilance and commitment from both the leadership and the citizenry. Nigerians must recognise the warning signs of authoritarianism and take proactive steps to resist its encroachment before it becomes thoroughly entrenched. A Nigeria where democratic institutions are genuinely independent, and governance is driven by transparency and accountability is still possible. However, it requires a collective effort to push back against authoritarian enablers and restore the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.

Nigerian journalists, wearing medals of bravery in fights against colonialists and politicians    and, bearing the scars of battles  against  military dictatorship, are marking the 70th anniversary of their union.

No, journalism in the country did not start seven decades ago. It was the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, that was established at that time. Proper journalism began in 1859, that is 166 years ago with the publication of the first newspaper ‘Iwe Irohin’.    Since then, the bulk of journalists    have strived to be the voice of the people.  ‘The Lagos Weekly    Record’ published by John Payne Jackson, from 1891-1930, was a torn in the flesh of the colonialists. It combined journalism  with    political    activism, including organising protests against the colonialists.

Five years before the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria into a single country, the colonialists had enacted the Seditious Offences Act of 1909 to repress and suppress the press. One of the most outstanding journalists of the anti-colonial    era was Ernest Ikoli.  He was the Editor of the ‘Daily    Express’, Member of the Legislative Council and President of the Nigeria Youth Movement, NYM.  He mentored towering nationalists like Obafemi Awolowo. As the Second World War raged, the colonialists  imposed the  General Defence Regulations of 1941 which curbed workers activities and virtually made strikes in any establishment an illegal act.

The fragmented trade unions knew that they were no march for    the formidable British colonial power.  Although he was not a trade unionist, Ikoli used his position as the  President of the  NYM to call a unity meeting  of    the trade unions in the country. That was    in October 1942. All the trade unions turned up, and Ikoli presided at what was to become the first    labour centre in the country. There was Anthony Enahoro who, at 21 in 1944, became the youngest Editor of a mainstream newspaper,  the    ‘Southern Nigeria Defender’. He was jailed three times by the colonialists for offences which included inciting workers to attack  the police and, chairing a national conference in which ‘A Call For Revolution’ was made to overthrow the colonial government.

The NUJ was created on March 15, 1955 to cater for all journalists. It remains a unique  union because  while generally, the three arms in industrial relations: the employee, senior staff and employers, have separate unions, the NUJ accommodates all three under a single umbrella. The only proviso in its constitution is that anyone who sits on the side of management at meetings with the union, cannot hold an elective office in the NUJ. The NUJ has led journalists through bruising periods such as when media houses were shut down by the Shagari administration. The Buhari military regime built on this by issuing    Decree 4 of 1984 under which  the publication of the truth or  falsehood could be criminal offences. Under Decree 4, two journalists, Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor, were sent to prison.

The Babangida regime tried to intimidate  the press mostly  by mindlessly  shutting down media houses and detaining journalists without trial.  In one of the most bizzare instances, that regime, in the wake of the 1990 Orkar  attempted coup, seized 19 journalists and accused some of them of complicity,  a    treasonable crime that carried the death penalty.

Four years before then, a leading Editor, Dele Giwa, was murdered when a letter bomb sent to him exploded. Given the dangers journalists faced, some of them in the late 1980s decided to  reform the NUJ and  prepare it for the battles ahead.  They established a movement, the New Trend,  to practise a journalism of social relevance which placed the people at the centre of professional practice.  The movement won the NUJ presidency in 1990 and uniquely, established a Journalists in Distress Fund. This effort, which raised huge    sums, collapsed    due to mismanagement and transparency challenges.

Eventually, the movement itself collapsed leading to marked degeneracy in the union. This was to the extent that in 2020, the NUJ leadership was linking the COVID-19 outbreak, to the roll out of the G5 network! The NUJ had in a salutary move    far back in September 1989, empowered women journalists by    establishing    the Nigeria Association of Women Journalists, NAWOJ.

The Nigerian newspaper,  like its counterparts across the globe, was faced with the issue of a 24-hour newspaper which would report the news round the clock. The defunct ‘Daily Times’ had begun publishing its ‘Evening Times’.    The    ‘Vanguard Newspapers’ and the ‘Guardian Newspapers’ also introduced evening editions, while veteran Editor, Muyiwa Adetiba, published a wholly evening newspaper ‘Today’s News Today’, TNT. However, all these did not prepare the Nigerian  newspaper for the on-coming revolution of a round-the-clock newspaper publication which the age of the internet imposed.  

The newspapers, in order to survive and remain relevant, had to introduce electronic copies to the hardcopy newspapers they published.  Now, the  major newspapers, apart from their electronic version, also have their News TV.    In fact, some have established full television stations.  Today, the demarcation between the newspaper and electronic media has become blurred. All these have implications for journalists as all media can be accessed online virtually for free. These have had serious implications for advert and income which    have led some media to collapse, while some journalists are unpaid for months.  

These were  not challenges  the NUJ envisaged, but now at 70, has to face. There is also the advent of Citizen Journalism carried out by non- professional  journalists  or, anybody who can buy data.  Also compounding the problem is the advent of  media influencers many of who ride on the back of sensationalism, unverified news, blackmail and, sometimes, outright falsehood    in order to make a living or become rich.  

The NUJ has played significant roles in the life of the country, but has more tasks to carry out such as  the constitutional responsibility of the journalist to hold government accountable to the people. It also needs to ensure that the Freedom of Information, FOI, Act is observed by all.

There are certainly lots of battles ahead as many politicians muddle the Constitution and turn our political landscape into crime scenes.

There is also the danger of weaponising  the Cyber Crime Act to criminalise journalism practice and fundamental human rights. This will be intensified as governments realise that in the age of the internet, it will be far more difficult to control information.

Many elites, including  those in government have risen to congratulate the NUJ at 70. It is truly an age to roll out the drums, but  journalists know that amongst those congratulating them are enemies of  press freedom. All lizards crawl on their stomach, we don’t know which have bellyache.  May the next 70 years be more beautiful for generations of journalists. Ameen.