HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION AS THE NEW FRONTIER OF CONTEMPORARY JOURNALISM By Emmanuel Onwubiko

In this brief piece, I am working on the frame of mind that you the members of my good audience are vastly aware of the import of the word mass media. I am also operating with the mindset that the media in the main is made up of the electronic, print and in our contemporary period, we now have the new social media like Face Book, Twitter, ToGo among numerous others.

I will therefore dwell extensively on what I have chosen to identify as “human rights protection as the new frontier of contemporary journalism” because of my belief that the essence of section 22 of our Nigerian Constitution is to task media workers with the duty of protecting human rights of the citizenry and especially of the weak in the society.

Section 22 of the Constitution of Nigeria of 1999 (as amended) is on the obligation of the mass media. It states thus; “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 carrying out the legal duty imposed on the Nigerian media, the media workers must clearly understand the full implication of section 14 of the constitution which deals with the primary legal duty of Government to the Nigerian people.

Importantly, section 14, subsection 2(b) states that; “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.

Going further in article c of subsection 2, the Constitution provides that; “the participation by the people in their Government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of the constitution”.

One of the ways of knowing that there is good governance in a country is when the fundamental human rights of the citizenry are respected by all and sundry and the members of the public allowed unfettered access into how their God given resources are spent by the people they elected and bestowed the democratic mandate to promote only but public good/interest. Chapter four of the constitution is replete with these fundamental rights provisions. The Nigerian media is constitutionally obliged to ensure that these rights are respected and to expose violators for possible prosecution and sanction in the competent court of law in compliance with section 6 of the Constitution. Let me sound a note of caution- for those of you who wish to become media practitioners so as to use the job as platform for inaugurating your political ambitions, you have lost the plot even before the drama begins. This is because the work of the mass media is not a springboard for political advancement of the practitioners but for those who wish to make their mark as respected writers and media workers. Those who go into journalism to use it to carry out public relations with pecuniary interest in mind should forget going into the job because you will end up becoming a big laughing stock among your peers. The media is one institution whereby the weak points and/or professional fault lines of the members are immediately decoded in the news rooms because as the popular saying goes, you are as good as your last byline. What this goes to show is that investigative journalism is the best kind of journalism for journalism/mass communication students to embrace in the nearest future because it would afford the prospective practitioners in the media sector the opportunity to extensively expose the threats posed to the human rights of the ordinary people. Developmental journalism also emphasizes human rights advocacy through the mass media because development essentially serves the interest of the people and provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

But come to think of it; what is human right so much so that we are now being told that it should constitute the new frontier of contemporary journalism in Nigeria?

I will cite the authoritative pronouncement of an erudite scholar Mr. Manfred Nowak, Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann institute of HUMAN Rights at the University of Vienna and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. He alongside Mr. Jeroen Klok and Ms. Ingeborg Schwarw produced a beautiful book titled “HUMAN RIGHTS HAND BOOK FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS”.

According to them; “Human Rights are the most fundamental rights of human beings. They define relationships between individuals and power structures, especially the State. Human rights delimit State power and, at the same time, require States to take positive measures ensuring an environment that enables all people to enjoy their human rights” History, in the last 250 years has been shaped by the struggle to create such an environment. Starting with the French and American revolutions in the late eighteenth century, the idea of human rights has driven many a revolutionary movement for empowerment and for control over the wielders of power, Governments in particular".

These authors further stated that: "Government and other duty bearers are under an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, which form the basis for legal entitlements and remedies in case of non-fulfillment. In fact, the possibility to press claims and demand redress differentiates human rights from the precepts of ethical or religious value systems".

They argued that; "From a legal standpoint, human rights can be defined as the sum of individual and collective rights recognized by sovereign States and enshrined in their constitutions [ as in Nigerian Constitution] and in international law[Universal Declarations of Human Rights; African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, ETC]."

Recalling that since the Second World War, that the United Nations has played a leading role in defining and advancing human rights, which until then had developed mainly within the nation State, these authors charged political authorities and even media practitioners to use their privileged positions to advance human rights.

Reminding us that through the different internal fora that members of the United Nations have worked vigourously to ensure that human rights have been codified in various international and regional treaties and instruments that have been ratified by most countries, and represent today the only universally recognized value system, these erudite scholars are of the view that human society would be incomplete without strict adherence and respect to the sanctity and sacredness of human rights. I share these knowledgeable views totally.

Ms. Ayo Atsenuwa of the faculty of law, University of Lagos produced a beautiful out line on the historicity of the concept of human rights whereupon she stated that the concept of human rights gained currency and has become consistently relevant right from the period of;

· Magna Carta;

· Natural La/Natural Rights Discourse;

· American War of Independence and the American Declaration of Independence/French Revolution & French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen;

· World War I and the Protection of Minorities;

· World War II and the United Nations;

· Cold-War;

· Civil Rights Movement/Women’s Liberation Movement/Decolonization of Africa;

· Post-Cold War/Globalization & Emergence of Neo-liberal ethos;

· Multiculturalism; and the

· Post-Sept 11 2001 terrorists attack of World Trade center in New York; United States of America by suicide bombers sent by the now assassinated Osama Bin-Laden.

Professor Ayo Atsenuwa very rightly stated that;

· Human Rights are the embodiment of human aspirations-

· To have food, shelter and clothing;

· To live, free of want and disease;

· To be assured of justice;

· To be free and allowed to live a life of dignity; and

· To access opportunities for, and not be constrained in self-actualization.

The attributes of human rights are universality; in alienability; indivisibility and interdependent.

I think the media of mass communication in Nigeria is obliged to wage relentless campaign on behalf of the people and also enlighten the people on their fundamental rights. But one major defect is the ownership structure of media establishments in Nigeria.

In Nigeria, political and business elite are the owners of most of the private media houses in the electronic and print just as the media houses run by the different levels of government have failed to open up these media to all divergent views especially those with opposing views to their pay masters. This tendency must change if we ever want to retain public trust and confidence.

One way to do this is for the National media regulators to adequately monitor the use to which media establishments are deployed and to sanction any of the media that fails to work for the public good and interest. Democracy must take firm root and the democratic culture must be imbibed by all and sundry so that media houses owned by state and Federal Governments are independently administered by tested and trusted managers for the general interest of the general public and not the parochial interest of the state Governors of the federal minister of information because public fund do not belong to either the Governors or ministers but belong to the PUBLIC.

The strategy, philosophy, and operational method of journalism in our contemporary Nigerian society must be directed towards serving the best interest of Nigerians. We thank God that good spirited individuals and inventors have come up with the new social media which has democratize the spread of information but we must exercise some decency and discretion so that we do not end up using social media for criminal activities like the unfortunate killing of Miss. Cynthia Osokogu, the daughter of Major General Frank Osokogu who was killed by her online friends who lured her to travel to meet them in Lagos only to end up snuffing the life out of her. May her gentle soul rest in perfect peace, amen.

* Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, is a former Federal Commissioner of the Nigerian National Human Rights Commission [NHRC] and the National coordinator of the Non-profit, Non-Political and Non-religious organization-HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS’ ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA; HURIWA.

Thursday August 30th 2012.

WILL CYNTHIA OSOKOGU’S KILLERS BE PUNISHED? By Emmanuel Onwubiko

For the last two weeks Nigerians have had the misfortune of being bombarded with the shocking news of the gruesome killing by suspected hoodlums of Miss Cynthia Osokogu, the twenty four year old post- graduate student of the Nasarawa State University, Keffi and the only daughter of a retired military General-Major General Frank Osokogu whose retirement house is in Jos, Plateau State.

The young girl was said to have been lured by her alleged killers through the new social media from her base in Keffi, Nasarawa state to Lagos State where she underwent grueling sessions of physical assault and she suffered eventual death . Those who brutally murdered the young student and upwardly mobile entrepreneur, were reported to have met her through one of the social media chat rooms online whereby they deceived her into believing that they are genuine importers of foreign Fabrics and clothing and proposed a business meeting in Lagos.

Cynthia Osokogu just like any young Nigerian that consistently meet new friends and business partners online, decided to pay her new online friends a visit in Lagos since that was where she always buys her materials for her fashion outlet in Keffi, but she never returned alive.

The dastardly criminal act of the gruesome murder by online friends of this young Nigerian girl has sent shock waves across the country and a lot of people have also raised alarm of the inherent danger posed by dangerous criminals who use the new social media to lure their unsuspecting victim(s) to be dispossessed of their belongings and in some cases sexually abused and gruesomely murdered as was the case with Miss Cynthia.

The story of the murder of Cynthia came to light about the same period that a national debate was ignited by the Senate President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the danger and/or criminal activities that some shady characters have deployed the new social media as their platforms for committing different atrocities. But David Mark who only spoke about the damaging circulation of false allegations and libelous materials on the internet by these “faceless” internet hoodlums, never knew that there are even more danger lurking around the new social media.

When David Mark called for moderation and respect to ethical code of journalism in the use of new social media, little did he know that even armed robbers and murderers have found solace in the use of the new social media to lure their would-be victims as was the case with this young Nigerian lady-Cynthia Osokogu.

When people criticized David Mark for his alarm on the misuse of the new social media, this writer had backed him and also called for respect for ethical codes.

I had written that on the ethical question raised by David Mark, the Senate President on the abuse of the social media by most untrained minds, I think his position is sound, qualitative, objective and should therefore not be dismissed as canvassing for tighter laws on use of social or new media in Nigeria similar to what obtains in China and places like Iran or even Saudi Arabia.

The Senate President stated thus; “The emergence of social media like face book, twitter, blackberry messenger, YouTube have changed the face of media practice by making information sharing easier, faster and quicker. But this is not without its demerits. Social media has become a threat to the ethics of media practice and good governance because of its accessibility and absolute freedom. Every freedom carries a responsibility. Even in advanced democracies, where we all agree that good governance is practiced, there is no absolute freedom.”

He spoke further; “I therefore believe that there must be a measure to check the negative tendencies of the social media in our country. I say this because media practice, particularly journalism, process its news gathering and dissemination. It also operates a feedback mechanism and where the practitioners err there is room for rebuttal. But in the social media a faceless character can post any information that is absolutely false and misleading but will never retract it. At the end of the day one is bombarded with questions over what one has no business with.”

David Mark suggested a simple solution thus; “I suggest that schools of mass communication and journalism should review their curricula to include the operations of social media.”

On the killing of Miss Osokogu, the Nigerian police Force has announced the arrest of two suspects in the murder: Mr. Nwabuzo Okumo and Ezekiel Odera. The police had at a parade of the arrested suspects vowed to prosecute them over this despicable crime. The suspects were said to have drugged and chained Cynthia before beating her to death at a hotel named Casmillo Hotel, Lakeview, Estate, Phase 1, Amuwo Odofin Lagos.  During the parade led by the Lagos State police commissioner Mr. Umar Manko, last Wednesday, the suspects reportedly confessed to have lured Cynthia  Osokogu to her early death on the new social media.

Some analysts have praised what they called police decisive and effective arrest of these suspects only one month after this sad incident. But I am not one of those analysts to be deceived by this familiar method of crime fighting of the police which has not helped in pinning down suspects to the various crimes and obtaining quality convictions in the competent courts of law in compliance with section 6 of the Constitution of Nigeria of 1999 (as amended).

Specifically, part II, Article four of the police Act provides that; “The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as may be required by them by, or under the authority, of this or any other Act”.

Nigeria Police Force has bad record of always rushing to parade crime suspects but always fail to ensure that good enough scientific/forensic body of evidence are generated, preserved and used by the prosecutors in the competent courts of law to get convictions for alleged crime suspects.

It is not enough to parade the suspected killers of Miss. Cynthia but the police must be made to generate unassailable body of evidence so that the real killers of this young innocent Nigerian girl- Miss Cynthia Osokogu are punished severely for this evil they have done to us all as decent Nigerians.

*   Emmanuel Onwubiko, Head, HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS’ ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA, blogs@www.huriwa.blogspot.com.   

27/8/2012 

  

SHELL: EXPENSIVE MISDEEDS; EXPENSIVE SECURITY By Emmanuel Onwubiko

The Dutch owned multi-national crude oil conglomerate recently issued a media release in which it claimed that it spends huge sums of money to protect and safeguard the lives and property of the company and their staff in the oil rich but criminally neglected and marginalized Niger Delta communities in Southern Nigeria.

Media reports both internationally and locally which was published on Tuesday August 21st 2012 showed that Shell, which has very notorious image among residents of oil bearing but devastated communities in the Niger Delta spends princely sums of hard currency in payments to armed security operatives for the purposes of protecting their commercial crude oil drilling operations.

It is also a notorious fact that the majority of the armed security operatives that work in the crude oil producing facilities in the once volatile Niger Delta Communities are drawn largely from the officers and men of the Nigerian Armed forces who work under an official designation as joint military task force. It is uncertain if these huge payments were made directly to official coffers of the Nigerian Armed forces for the purposes of securing the facilities of Shell and the lives and property of the staff or if the payments were made to the armed security operatives on the ground or that the huge fund simply disappeared into the pockets of the commanders.

According to media reports, Shell may have spent over $383 million (N61.3 billion) to secure its facilities and personnel in the Niger Delta between 2007 and 2009, going by a disclosure recently from a London-based industry watchdog platform.

The expenditure profile arose during the period when militant insurgency in the oil rich region was grave. This period must have been before the then Umaru Musa Yar’adua-led Federal Government introduced a general amnesty program for repentant militants who surrendered their arms and ammunitions voluntarily.

Specifically, in 2009 alone, $65 million (N10.4 billion) was reportedly expended on security issues by the oil giant on state official operatives and $75 million on “other” security costs to private companies and individuals.

Also, an estimated $127 million was spent on unexplained category marked “other”, the documents showed. It is alleged that the fund classified as ‘other’ may have been used to bribe Government officials and other members of the ruling elite.

Contacted by local media, a spokesperson at Shell’s Nigeria subsidiary did not comment on Platform’s figures, saying only that protecting company staff and assets is “Shell’s highest priority”.

“Shell’s total support for government forces in Nigeria reached an estimated $65 million. This is staggering transfer of company funds and resources into the hands of soldiers and police known for routine rights abuses,” Platform alleged.

The group’s Nigeria researcher, Ben Amunwa told AFP those payments were “a stunning failure of due diligence,” as Shell was well aware that Nigeria’s security forces had long been accused of brutality by international and domestic rights groups.

Amunwa said the report was based on documents given to platform by a source closely familiar with Shell’s security budget, who approached the watchdog independently.

There is evidence that indicates Shell used this ‘other’ budget for a variety of questionable purposes,” the report said. United States diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks disclosed exclusively that some of the company’s funds were channeled to militant groups in the Delta, according to Platform’s report.

My take on this report that Shell spends a lot of money for the purpose of security of their operational staff and facilities is that the huge security expenses come about because the Dutch crude oil multi-national company is known for not keeping clean records when it comes to corporate social responsibility.

It is a hard fact that when business transactions are conducted in fairness and the host communities carried along, it therefore follows that even the members of the communities where such commercial activities take place would automatically takes up ownership of the protection of the operational staff and facilities.

Shell particularly is notorious for violating human rights provisions which should guide their commercial operations in their host communities in the Niger Delta region. There are several respected reports that have indicted the company for these violations.

The company has recently been fingered as a serious violator of the environmental rights of the people of their host communities.

On April 25th 2012, report filtered out from the London based global human rights body-Amnesty international that a major oil spill in the Niger Delta was far worse than Shell previously admitted.

Amnesty international alongside center for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), had secured the information based on an independent assessment they jointly conducted reportedly.

To underline the grave nature of the environmental devastation caused by the oil spills as reported by the global human rights watchdog, it was discovered that the spill in 2008, was caused by a fault in a Shell pipeline which resulted in tens of thousands of barrels of oil polluting the land and creek surrounding Bodo, a Niger Delta town of some 69,000 people.

The previously unpublished assessment, carried out by US firm Accufacts Inc. found that between 1,440 and 4,320 barrels of oil were flooding the Bodo area each day following the leak. The Nigerian regulators have confirmed that the spill lasted for 72 days.

Shell’s official investigation report claims only 1,640 barrels of oil were spilt in total. But based on the independent assessment the total amount of oil spilt over the 72 day period is between 103,000 barrels and 311,000 barrels.

“The difference is staggering: even using the lower end of the Accurfacts estimate, the volume of oil spilt at Bodo was more than 60 times the volume Shell has repeatedly claimed leaked,” said Audrey Gaughran, Director of Global Issues at Amnesty International.

As usual, shell disputed these well considered findings of these internationally respected non-governmental institutions that uncovered these grave crimes against the environmental rights of the people of the oil producing communities that are the host communities of shell commercial activities.

In that light, Shell’s Corporate Media Relations Manager, Mr. Tony Okonedo, in his response, said: “Under Nigerian regulations, oil spill incidents are investigated by a joint team of operators, communities, security agencies and regulators. A similar team investigated the spills in Bodo, and we stand by their findings.
“The spill volume was ascertained on the ground by experts at the time
and agreed by all parties – who signed off on the joint investigation report. As has been stated previously, SPDC admitted liability for two spills of about 4,000 barrels in Bodo caused by operational failures, as soon as their cause had been verified in late 2008 and early 2009.

“We do not agree with Amnesty International’s assessment of the spill investigation process. We have recently had the investigation process, which is common to all operators in the Niger Delta, independently verified by Bureau Veritas.

The question that readily comes to mind whenever reports emerge of the monumental environmental devastation caused by oil exploration activities of these multi-national crude oil companies that are joint venture partners with the Nigerian government owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) is whether they are aware of their human rights obligations?

It is noteworthy to refer Shell, as well as other multinational oil companies who spend a lot on security because they are not doing the right thing in their host communities, to study the United Nations framework on what business executives need to know about human rights.

In a scholarly report carried on the website of www.ethical corp.com authored by Anthony Ewing on February 17th, 2011, I am able to adduce that business executives such as shell petroleum company in their operations in Nigeria must observe international best practices and strive to refrain from wanton destruction of aquatic lives and the beautiful environment of the oil bearing communities as a way of winning the confidence, trust and friendship of the people.

Accordingly, the UN framework, welcomed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2008, has three pillars:

· The state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication;

· The corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts that occur; and

· Provide greater access for victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial.

Learned legal minds are of the knowledgeable opinion that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is more than just a legal responsibility. According to these scholars, respecting human rights means not violating them, but also means addressing any “adverse human rights impacts” companies may generate or to which they contribute.

Shell petroleum should clean up the devastated environment of the oil producing areas that they reportedly destroyed, compensate the rural populations whose sources of livelihood such as farming and fishing were destroyed and be sure to spend less on security.

Government of Nigeria has a constitutional obligation to ensure that crude oil companies operating in Nigeria comply with extant fundamental human rights provisions as encompassed in Chapter four of the Constitution of Nigeria of 1999 (as amended).

It is also bad that armed security operatives belonging to the Nigerian Armed Forces who ought to discharge the constitutional duty of protecting the territorial integrity of the Nigerian State and people from terror gangs are now paid heavily by foreign crude oil firms operating in Nigeria to provide cover for them while they (oil companies) embark on the unprecedented devastation of Nigeria’s natural environment for their selfish commercial benefits which are taken away to foreign economies.

President Jonathan should direct the officials of the ministry of petroleum and the very vibrant National oil Spill Detection and Regulatory Agency (NOSDRA) to compel oil companies to comply with human rights Standards. Section 20 of the Constitution provides that; “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wild life of Nigeria”. This environmental objective constitutionally guaranteed must be respected if Nigeria is not to suffer monumental effects of the rapidly emerging climate change.

* Emmanuel Onwubiko, Head, HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS’ ASSOCIATION OF Nigeria, blogs@www.huriwa.blogspot.com.

23/8/2012