OPINION
By Suleiman A. Suleiman
WHEN I read the news and commentary about an attempted coup in Nigeria since October last year, I have asked myself many times if this is nothing more than a “coup” on the pages of newspapers, and a “trial” of a coup only in the news.
Journalism, like the law, and science, is a business of evidence and verifiable facts. But so far, the facts of this case have been inconsistent and contradictory, and the evidence all but evident. It is the responsibility of the media to report the news about anything, including coups. But it is also the responsibility of the media to provide evidence of its reporting, be it a coup or a wedding. This responsibility is not to be taken lightly, and the higher the significance and likely public impact of a story, the higher the threshold of proof and evidence required of the journalist to demand from a source, and for the journalist to provide to the reader.
However, much reporting on this issue has lacked concrete evidence that support a coup attempt. All we have heard on this case are innuendos and hearsays from anonymous sources, all of which is not evidence. For a story at this level of public significance, material evidence of some kind must be provided to the public, for example, documentary evidence like transcripts of text messages or emails of conversations among the alleged plotters; audio, video, photos or other recordings of the coup plot and the alleged plotters; bank transactions of cashflow linking directly to the plot, not just to the accounts of those being accused, etc.
The use of anonymous sources is acceptable and common in news reporting, but overuse of such sources is a problem. In a case this important, a series of stories based almost entirely on unnamed sources does damage to the credibility of the story. Seymour Hersh, one of the world’s most celebrated investigative reporters, found his story on Syria during the Obama administration severely disputed because many leading journalists and media organisations felt that for a story as important as that, all his main sources could not just be unnamed “insiders”. In the end, even the London Review of Books, with which Hersh had previously been associated for years, issued a public statement retracting his reports.
Secondly, reporting on this issue has not only left much to be desired, but it has often felt like an influence operation. First, newspapers reported the military to have said they had arrested some officers over internal disciplinary issues resulting from tardiness and promotion grievances. Next, newspapers told us that the same officers were under investigation for attempted coup. The Defence Headquarters, to which the original story of arrest over disciplinary issues arising from grievances had been attributed, publicly denied the coup story and insisted on its initial information of routine discipline. Today, we are being told by the same Defence Headquarters that what it previously denied is now true, after a change of guard from one Director of Defence Information to another.
Also, we were told initially that the accused plotters had intended to overthrow our democratically elected government and that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas were all targeted by the alleged plotters on October 1st last year. Now, we are being told that the plot had been planned for execution much earlier on May 29 2023.
But both Akpabio and Abbas had not assumed their respective offices as of May 29 2023. How could the alleged plotters have known to include Akpabio and Abbas on the list of those targeted if the plan was meant for execution on May 29 2023? This sounds more like a serious contradiction than a minor discrepancy, even as the number of suspects has also burgeoned from 16 to 40.
Which version of the coup plot is true, then? The one the Defence HQ denied before, or the one it now affirms?
Moreover, the breaking news story on this issue first came from Sahara Reporters, then Premium Times, and then this newspaper. All the stories were remarkably similar on the same core facts around the same time, even though each newspaper loudly proclaimed to have had an “exclusive” or “fresh revelation” on the issue. In journalism, “exclusive” means a story no other media has, and “fresh revelation” means additional new information not previously reported on the same issue. It is not “exclusive” if other outlets are reporting the same thing, and it is not “fresh” If there is no new information or dimension to the story. But here we are.
Furthermore, in its latest reporting on the issue, titled “EXCLUSIVE: Inside details of arms, ammunition, cars recovered from suspected coup plotters”, and published on its website on Saturday 31st January, 2025, Premium Times used the words “the conspirators” and “the plotters” a combined SIX TIMES, without appropriate qualifiers like “alleged”, “accused” or “suspected”, as is required for such a story. This could be a mistake, but it also amounts to a very serious and dangerous journalistic sloppiness, given that attempted coups are matters of life and death in Nigeria. for such a story, you say “alleged conspirators”, “alleged plotters”, or the like, not simply “the plotters” or “the conspirators”, as if by themselves reporters and editors can pronounce any accused persons as guilty.
Whether mistakes or not, all of these contradictions and gaps present the reporting on this coup case more like an influence operation of sorts than factual news reporting. Journalists cannot depend entirely on anonymous sources on not one, but several stories on the same issue. Journalists must also not convict accused persons or call them guilty in their news stories even before a trial, certainly not in a case that is a matter of life and death for those involved.
For these reasons, I agree with the human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), that the trial of this case must be pursued in an open court, rather than a military court-martial. The inconsistencies in what the public knows about the case so far are just too numerous to ignore, either from the perspective of journalism or the law. As the news reports on the case have shown, this case involves not just an alleged attempt to truncate Nigeria’s democracy, but also an alleged attempt to kill certain persons, some of whom are civilians. That means the case also involves attempted murder, and therefore cannot be tried by a secret military court.
Moreover, while it is reassuring to hear that the Nigerian Army, the Defence Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State Services are involved in the investigations, it is also the case that their evidence does not nullify or suspend the burden of evidence needed for a life and death matter such as this. If anything, the involvement of these agencies makes the need for material and substantive evidence even more important, in the court of law or of public opinion.
In law as in journalism, evidence in a case of treason and attempted murder cannot be assumed but must be presented to the court, or the public. But so far, there has been little concrete evidence that has been revealed to the public by the media or by the involved authorities on this case. In a country where phantom coups are not new, real or alleged, this should bother all Nigerians.
In addition, in Nigerian laws, attempting a coup is not only a serious illegal action, but it also amounts to a treasonable offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. For this reason alone, but also because of the too many inconsistent pieces of information on this case so far, the authorities owe it to both Nigerians and the alleged defendants to have an open trial. The public’s right to know is overwhelming in this case, and so too is the alleged defendants’ right to open and free trial.
Finally, none of what I have said so far is a denial of the alleged plot. Rather, it is a call to the fact that, for a case of life and death such as this, the threshold of proof, evidence and openness must not only be very high, it cannot be lowered.
The article was first published in Daily Trust