By Edetaen Ojo
Executive Director, Media Rights Agenda (MRA) At the 2025 Annual Congress and Annual General Meeting (AGM) Of the International Press Institute (IPI) Nigeria
Held on December 2 and 3, 2025
At Nicon Luxury Hotel, Abuja
Permit me to briefly thank the President and National Committee of the International Press Institute (IPI) Nigeria for this opportunity to share these thoughts with you.
I would like to start by outlining the role of the media under our democratic system of government, as provided by the constitution.
Section 22 of the Constitution is fairly short but nonetheless very loaded.
It states: “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 (Chapter II) and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.”
What does this mean? There are many different interpretations that we can put into this section and all of them would be correct because it is a very robust provision.
The section is part of Chapter II of the Constitution, which outlines broad governance principles for Nigeria and lays out moral, political, and governance obligations for the State.
Section 22 is a constitutional directive on the role of the media in governance. It establishes the oversight and watchdog function of the media in Nigeria and positions the media as an instrument to:
Promote transparency and accountability in governance.
Provide information to the public, and therefore to the people
Serve as a check on governmental power
Protect our democracy by keeping citizens informed.
The section recognizes the media as an essential part of governance and democratic accountability.
By saying that the media shall at all times be “free to uphold…” the Constitution signals that the media must operate without undue interference or hindrance by the State or any actor.
This freedom implies that the media must be independent and protected from censorship. It should be able to investigate, publish, criticize, and expose wrongdoing; and have the freedom to inform the public about any and everything with the goal of advancing accountability.
Please note that this provision is mandatory in the use of the word “shall”. It does not lend itself to any ambivalence.
One of the justifications frequently given for the harassment, intimidation and other forms of attacks on journalists is the claim that their reporting or commentary undermines national security.
So please permit me to highlight another important provision of Chapter II. This section 14(2)(b) which provides that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”
This provision is also part of Chapter II. So the oversight role of the media under Section 22 of the Constitution also extends to holding government responsible and accountable with respect to the security and welfare of the people.
So the media is not just free to do this, it is obligated by the Constitution to do it.
Section 22 is non-justiciable in the light of Section 6(c) of the Constitution.
Indeed, the whole of Chapter II is non-justiciable.
Having made Chapter II non-justiciable, the Constitution puts the media in charge of ensuring respect for and compliance by Government with Chapter II.
In order words, it makes the media the constitutional mechanism to enforce accountability under Chapter II and makes public scrutiny of government officials a constitutional duty of the media.
I understand that some people in Government may not like this arrangement, but that is what the Constitution has given us. As we frequently say these days in Nigeria, if you don’t like it, go to Court!
Successive governments since 1999 have taken advantage of the fact that this section is non-justiciable to obstruct the media in the performance of this constitutional duty. But in so doing, they are in flagrant violation of the Constitution.
This is what Section 13 of the Constitution says: “It shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this Chapter (II) of this Constitution.”
The chapter of the Constitution referred to here is the one that includes Section 22. So any organ of government, any authority or any person exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, who obstructs the media in the performance of its constitutional functions is violating the Constitution. There can be no question about that.
In addition to this, such a person is also breaching the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and violating his or her oath of office.
Paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers provides that “A public officer shall not do or direct to be done, in abuse of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of any other person knowing that such act is unlawful or contrary to any government policy.”
So when you direct the police or other security or law enforcement agents to go and arrest a journalist, is that a lawful exercise of your power and authority?
Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers further provides that “A public officer who does any act prohibited by this Code through a nominee, trustee, or other agent shall be deemed ipso facto to have committed a breach of this Code,”
A simple interpretation of this means the fact that you did not personally prevent a journalist from carrying out his or her professional duties but used the Police or the DSS or some other agency to obstruct the work of the journalist or unlawfully punish the journalist does not exonerate you.
Now, let me proceed to outline some of the obligations of the government with respect to the protection of journalists for the purpose of enabling them to perform their professional duties safely.
One of the clearest instruments articulating these obligations is the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) in 2019. I will quote verbatim some provisions of Principle 20. Please note that the language is also mandatory in the consistent use of the word “shall”.
1. States shall guarantee the safety of journalists and other media practitioners.
2. States shall take measures to prevent attacks on journalists and other media practitioners, including murder, extra-judicial killing, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearance, kidnapping, intimidation, threats and unlawful surveillance undertaken by State and non-State actors.
4. States shall take effective legal and other measures to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of attacks against journalists and other media practitioners, and ensure that victims have access to effective remedies.
5. States shall be liable for the conduct of law enforcement, security, intelligence, military and other personnel which threatens, undermines or violates the safety of journalists and other media practitioners.
6. States shall take specific measures to ensure the safety of female journalists and media practitioners by addressing gender specific safety concerns, including sexual and gender-based violence, intimidation and harassment.
It is against this background that I would like to highlight some of the realities of the media environment in Nigeria.
All organizations that monitor and document attacks on journalists and the media in Nigeria are consistently recording worrisome levels of such attacks while the situation just appears to be going from bad to worse.
Available data from multiple organizations support this statement. But what is even more worrying is the fact that government officials, including security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, are responsible for most of these attacks.
These are the very same people who have the specific responsibility to protect journalists.
The latest report we released early in November to commemorate this year’s International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, revealed that government officials were responsible for nearly 74 percent of all attacks on journalists documented in Nigeria by my organization between January 1 and October 31, 2025.
So what conclusions can we draw from this situation? The conclusions are not pleasant and there is no way to sugarcoat them.
It is heartbreaking to note that perpetrators of attacks against journalists, within and outside government, are hardly ever held accountable for their attacks on journalists, including the killing of journalists.
Indeed, government officials, both lowly or high-ranking, are also hardly ever reprimanded for attacks on journalists, which unfortunately gives the impression that these acts have the blessing of the State or might in fact be official policy.
Under these circumstances, how do we discourage future attacks on journalists when the signal everyone is getting is that you can attack journalists, even kill journalists and you will very likely go scot free?
Is this a record we are proud of or that we can be proud of?
So when we look in the mirror and this is the image of ourselves that we see as a country in terms of our media environment and how we treat our journalists, do we feel good about it?
I believe it is now time for the government to respond decisively to this reality and say “No more”!
I think I speak for the entire media community when I say that we stand ready to work with Government to put in place systems and mechanisms to address this clearly unacceptable situation of media freedom and safety in Nigeria.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Speech delivered by Edetaen Ojo at the just concluded IPI conference in Abuja
