The Online Warriors By Reuben Abati

Must read article from former presidential aide,
Reuben Abati...
My criticisms of the excesses of the online
phenomenon in terms of its brazen abuse in
an unregulated environment has often made
me the target of attacks, with many
insisting on quoting the opening paragraph
of a piece I once wrote along these lines as
if it is a memorial verse, but further
developments have shown that indeed,
liberal, accommodative, useful and open as
the growth of the new media may seem in
Nigeria, we may well, if care is not taken,
be dealing with a dangerous tool in the
hands of the unscrupulous which could
drive society towards the lunatic fringe.
The beauty of the new media is its
democratic temper. With any electronic device,
anyone at all, can set up a communications unit,
using a phone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, and
simply occupy the social space and broadcast
information which in a matter of minutes may go
viral and condition public opinion. It grants the
person involved absolute freedom, even
anonymity, dangerous anonymity of self, space
and location, but the worst part of it is the
freedom from decency, responsibility and
conscience. And so while so much good can be
done by persons exchanging information, and as
has turned out, creative jokes and skits which
entertain and amuse, a lot of evil can be
committed through resort to blackmail, abuse,
and mischief.
This dangerous dimension is beginning to grow
in different directions and the latest that I have
seen is what seems to be the emergence of
cartels, or perhaps cabals in the online industry,
with various persons organizing themselves into
groups, and if this were to be a sign of freedom
of association exercised by like minds, it would
be commendable. But rather what is emerging is
bitter rivalry among the various groups, a fierce
struggle for territory, unhealthy, cut-throat
competition, and a desperation to out-do each
other. The group warriors are not necessarily
fighting for any great ideal, but ego, power,
privilege and access to the corridors of power.
I happen to have suddenly become a victim in
the midst of this turf-fighting, as my name this
week was drawn into a cat fight between two
groups: the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers
(GOCOP) and the Online Publishers Association of
Nigeria (OPAN). These are two of the emerging
groups but there are others: Association of Online
Bloggers, Association of Nigerian Online
Publishers (ANOP), the Online Magazines
Publishers Association (OMPA). And who knows,
there may well be the Association of What’s App
Users, the Nigerian Association of Twitter
Voltrons, Association of Nigerian BBM Users,
National Association of Chat Group
Administrators, all of them fighting over influence,
space, and patronage. This politicization of the
online business can only in the long run diminish
its influence and promote opportunism.
The case that I refer to was triggered by a
meeting in Lagos, between the Minister of
Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed
and a group of online publishers under the
umbrella of GOCOP. This prompted a rival group,
the OPAN to issue a statement accusing Alhaji
Mohammed of meeting with the wrong group and
ignoring the main stakeholders. There has been
serious “blood-sharing” since then. GOCOP issued
a rejoinder in which it attacked OPAN. And my
name was brought in. I was accused of being the
spirit behind OPAN, and an attempt was made to
set me up against Femi Adesina, my successor as
Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the
President of Nigeria. Femi was given special
praise, he being a Trustee of GOCOP, so the
whole thing is projected as OPAN being pro-
Jonathan and GOCOP being pro-Buhari.
I was also accused of having influenced the
Corporate Affairs Commission to block the
registration of NOPA, the first name that the other
group had chosen when it sought formal
registration. I was alleged to have used the
powers of the Presidency to victimize members of
then NOPA, who eventually adopted a new name
and got registered. But obviously, the aggrieved
were looking for an opportunity to go after me.
And they believe the time is now right and that
their facts are right, hence they threatened to
release “documents”.
They are wrong. Here are the facts: I was
invited to be a Trustee of OPAN in 2010 when I
was still Chairman of the Editorial Board of The
Guardian. I was at the time involved either as a
Trustee or contributor to many social causes -
motherless children’s homes, special children,
book reading clubs, girl child education projects,
and hence, adding to that list a group that
defined its objective as developing standards in
the emerging online space was not a problem for
me. I agreed to be a Trustee of OPAN and I made
inputs into the drafting of the philosophy of the
group. It had become clear by then that the
online space was bound to grow and that there
was a need for an articulation of ethical and
professional standards, which may not be
officially imposed but which could provide a basis
for the insistence on a responsible use of the
internet to promote serious issues. OPAN secured
registration with the CAC, but it remained in a
formative stage throughout the period I was in
office, and was only formally launched late 2015.
I did not even attend the launching ceremony.
Having seen that the group had finally found its
rhythm and its objectives properly defined, I
offered to step down from the Board of Trustees.
I got to know of the bitter fight over CAC
registration between GOCOP and OPAN in the
press release issued by the former.
Let me make this clear: I could not have been
involved in that fight. The CAC is a statutory body
and I believe it is in a position to defend its
integrity. Anyone knows that the CAC conducts
name-search before registering any organization
and where any conflict in identity is subsequently
reported, it has its own mechanism for resolving
such. If NOPA and OPAN were fighting over
nomenclature, it was the job of the CAC to
resolve that, not the Presidency. In any case, my
office could not have supported one group of
online publishers against another, because that
would have been counter-productive. My
assignment required me to relate regularly with
website owners, bloggers, and all categories of
journalists and they all published our materials. I
have made it clear privately that I probably
received more support from members of GOCOP,
many of whom I had always known and with
whom I had shared happier moments, particularly
at the St Bottles’ Cathedral in Lagos: our hang-
out in those days.
But I see that twice in the past eight months,
there have been curious attempts to pitch me
against my successor, Femi Adesina. In the
imagination of a dubious minority, I am supposed
to be fighting him and make his work difficult. I
can imagine the kind of stories that may have
been going back and forth, invented by persons
looking for what to eat. I have been there and I
know how it is. But Femi and I have never fought
over anything and we have absolutely no reason
to fight. I am out. He is in. Life goes on. I have
nothing against him or the PMB government. In
2015, the Nigerian people made a choice and
spoke. It is a choice that we respect.
But as if all that is not plain enough, the
latest that I have seen is a 2012 private e-mail
“document” purportedly leaked to Sahara
Reporters giving the impression that I worked
with an online group to undermine Sahara
Reporters in defence of the Jonathan
Government, and of course the sub-text is to link
me with the current war of the online publishers.
This has to do with an e-mail, which the
Association of Nigerian Online Publishers (ANOP)
sent to a third party which was forwarded to me.
I was then hearing about ANOP for the first time.
I forwarded the mail to the main promoter
of OPAN, the only one of such groups that was
known to me then and I only wanted to know if
this was the same group, given the striking
similarity. The leaked mail is one of many such
unsolicited proposals and suggestions that came
to my desk. Nothing came out of it thereafter,
and I had no reason to worry about that
innocuous incident until now. I took an oath of
office to defend the interests of the people,
President and Government of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria and I did my bit, but it was not the
style of that administration or my office to
intimidate, gag, frustrate or undermine the free
media. I had direct access to Omoyele Sowore,
the publisher of Sahara Reporters.
Throughout my four years on the job, he used
every single press release that we issued and
always listened to my many protestations. He
always insisted however, that he had his facts,
and that he knew more insiders than I could ever
imagine. I was always shocked how State House
documents and inside stories regularly found their
way to his desk, and how on the day the
President’s brother died, he had published the
story even before anyone in Aso Rock knew. If the
leaked e-mail proves anything, it is that he and
his own colleagues are involved in a bitter rivalry,
and that there is indeed a war of online operators
and this can only get worse with everyone these
days, becoming a blogger or online publisher.
This poses a serious challenge for media,
reputation, and perception managers who must
continuously swim in an ocean of sharks,
alligators and piranhas. If you relate with A, you
could offend B. And if you receive a mail from C,
you could get into trouble, not knowing which
cartel or cabal you are dealing with.
The truth, if we must say so, is that the
social media in Nigeria has become a battle-
ground for survival. It is no longer about young
people playing with a phone or a laptop, it is big
business, and where the stomach or sheer rivalry,
is involved, we can see that persons are ready to
shed blood, shred reputations and break jaws. It
is most unfortunate that this positive force that
could be used for the good of society is finally
going the way of all things. The other truth is
that the big war of communications is no longer
fought on the pages of newspapers, but online
and all the bad habits of old have been
transported, without any ethical restraint. This is
where the real danger lies.
The challenge is to insist that online
journalists, publishers, bloggers and tweeters
must be held down to certain prudential
standards of practice. The in-fighting is
unnecessary. The various associations can be
useful as vehicles of self-regulation, and for
promoting values and best options. They should
not become special purpose mechanisms for
patronizing politicians and political office holders.