| |
For obvious reasons, the controversy surrounding the sudden resignation of Nigeria’s 21st Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun on January 17 will continue to attract media attention for quite some time. Balogun, who on March 6, 2002 succeeded Musiliu Smith as IG, will formally quit the stage on March 6 when he would have spent three years in the saddle.
Barely minutes after the electronic media announced Balogun’s retirement sources close to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, headed by Assistant Police Commissioner Nuhu Ribadu, were informing anyone that cared to know that the retiring IG had been under surveillance for eight months concerning alleged financial improprieties. Specifically, the EFCC charged that the IG operated various multimillion Naira accounts at the head office of Fountain Trust Bank, Lagos. Amounts mentioned varied from N1 billion to N7. 4 billion.
 As the accounts went, IGP Balogun had been decorating newly promoted senior officers at the Force Headquarters, Abuja when he was summoned to the Aso Villa residence and office of Mr. President around 7pm. On arrival, he was confronted with the preliminary report of the EFCC and thereafter directed to proceed on terminal leave.
The government, through a four-page statement signed by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufot Ekaette, announced Balogun’s exit.
 Predictably, the media has been awash with stories on this development. The nature of the news and the stature of the person involved deserve no less. It is not often that a high-ranking state official is removed just like that. Since the government’s announcement did not indicate any reason for Balogun’s sudden exit, the media deserve commendation for their enterprise in establishing that there was more to the development than the government was prepared to admit. For one, the retiring IG had come across as one of the President’s point men. Even when tongues had wagged in the past that the role of the police in the Anambra state crisis was less than satisfactory, the government did not show any sign it thought otherwise.
But in the unrestrained regurgitation of any gist they were fed on the matter, the media have shown crass immaturity that conveniently forgets the moral and legal maxim that ‘an accused in innocent until proven guilty.’ Paper after paper has feasted on the subject celebrating the fall of the cop, insensitive to other nuances that could have enriched their reports and public understanding of the forces and issues at play. The haste by the EFCC to push its perspective on the story shows a predetermined move to colour media reportage and prejudice public perception. Since the matter was still in the realm of accusation to be followed by a thorough investigation, the EFCC was merely corralling the press into a media trial of the IG. The press, betraying its eagerness to believe the worst of people and institutions, published untruths about the bank mentioned and its officers.
Let us consider how five papers handled the fall of Balogun in the first week the story broke.
The Punch
In four words across six columns, “FG fires Tafa Balogun,” The Punch January 18 announced the change of guards at Police Headquarters. Adding on a lower deck, * “EFCC probes account *Ehindero takes over.” The account gave all the essential details of the government announcement, the EFCC investigation at Fountain Trust Bank and the appointment of an acting IG. The Punch quoted two EFCC sources, one named the other faceless. Whereas the former, Osita Nwajah, head of media relations, said the bank was not sealed, the latter said it was. Unsure who to believe said the bank The Punch published the two comments. The unnamed source gave the amount allegedly traced to the IG at the bank “as a huge sum in excess of N1 billion.” On page 3, Dotun Oladipo, in a news analysis, “Not just Balogun alone,” accused the federal government of insincerity in its public statement on Balogun’s ouster. His words: “to have covered up the real reasons for Balogun(‘s) sudden retirement does not speak well.” A more perceptive analyst would have suspected that for the federal government to have issued what could be taken as a ‘safe’ statement and a federal agency issuing ‘revealing’ statements there must be more to it than meets the eye. Was it an assertion of independence by the agency or a symptom of a larger play in the government?
On January 19, the EFCC left no one in doubt of its mission. In the front page lead, “Balogun faces trial,” The Punch quotes EFCC chairman, Nuhu Ribadu as confirming the speculations of the previous day. Ribadu had granted an interview on the Hausa programme of the BBC barely 24 hours after the government announcement where he said, “Our investigations revealed that there were huge lodgements in some local banks, which we traced and discovered that the accounts were ran (run) by Balogun.” The rest of the report dealt with independent investigations by The Punch, which established its heavy reliance on EFCC sources. One such source mentioned 12 acconts “opened by some fronts for him (IG) but we have tracked them.” The report also captured the mood at the bank. It gave the impression normal business was impaired as some “security guards directed customers to other branches of the bank.” The paper’s front page photograph of Ehindero in a celebratory mood was very compelling.
On January 20 the Punch still featured the Balogun story on front page. “I thank the President—Balogun,” quoted the IG saying “I thank the President and people of Nigeria for the opportunity to serve.” His lawyer, Tunji Abayomi, issued a statement which protested alleged malice and blackmail by the EFCC against his client. Said Abayomi: “EFCC should not in the name of investigation harass guilt against any citizen that is the subject of its investigation. It is, like any state investigator, bound too, by the principles of justice.” Adding the EFCC should “stop the vicious campaign, press accusations and affirmation of guilt of Mr. Balogun. It should not pollute his right to fair and balanced justice. It should conduct whatever investigation it wishes to conduct with soberness. It should avoid too much self righteous talk or cacophony.”
|