previous | next | table of contents

Reporting Diversity
A Review of Print Media Coverage of the Sharia Crisis in Nigeria

The recent coverage of the Sharia religious crisis in Kaduna State provides a vivid illustration of how the country's diversity ought not to be covered by the media. The debate about media abuse in coverage was first raised by Northern elders and Emirs when, after a meeting in Kaduna, they raised an alarm that media coverage of the events have been unduly "one-sided, unprofessional and unhelpful" in the search for solutions and in the long-term peaceful co-existence in the country.

Arguing that the southern orientation of the media caused bias against the north, they contended that a resolution of the country's problems could be solved only if the press learned not to complicate matters and if the southern media in particular learned an important lesson in preaching tolerance.

The major debate between the north and the south in Nigeria has always been whether the media, mostly based and owned in the south, could be fair and objective in dealing with matters outside its region. Since this is a deeply-held perception, it has always been difficult to suggest that the mix of experiences that makes up the peoples of the south is itself so diverse that they cannot be narrowly streamlined as "southern." To be sure, the south is diverse; for instance, one southwestern part is a mix of Christians, Moslems and other religions while another southeastern region is largely Christian. A huge gulf of ethnic differences separates them all.

There are, certainly, problems in coverage. Generally, newspapers tend to be purely reportorial in their attitude to coverage, sacrificing analysis, and in that process failing in a fundamental obligation to offer their readership the critical choices upon which they might make intelligent decisions. Newspapers often do not engage in a lot of analysis or interpretation. This gap, plus a penchant for the deification of personalities, opens the window for bias and misrepresentation.

A particular issue that comes to mind is how the media handles the issue of photo captioning. The captions, for instance, that accompanied two pictures published in a news magazine featured this outrage: The first picture, of a Christian archbishop from the south had the caption "The presidency must take a stand on this issue," while the second, a photograph of the governor of Zamfara state, who was the first to introduce the Sharia code of law, carried the caption "The 'high priest' of Sharia." The first caption was a statement made by the archbishop while the second was the journalist's opinion of the governor. In reporting the issue, it was usual for some journalists to use the expressions "Sharia governors, high priest of Sharia, Sharia jihadists," et cetera. Indeed, in one story, a reporter described the governor of Zamfara State as "a nondescript governor of a barren Zamfara who has become the leading light of the new Islamic states of the north." These expressions so colored the reports that it is fair to describe the media as behaving as if they were undertaking an evangelical crusade.

We Need To Discuss The Sharia Issue The launch of Sharia in Zamfara State had generated a lot of controversy. Dr. Ayesha Imam, Executive Director of Baobab, a women's human rights non-government organization, expresses the position of women in this interview with Kayode Ogunbunmi.

One of the major issues plaguing the nation is the introduction of Sharia. As a women's human rights advocate, what is your assessment of this development?

As someone from a Muslim community as well as a women's human rights advocate, I am very worried that women are being restricted. I feel there is a lot of confusion around the issue and a lot of emotions also. And one of the reasons is because if you are somebody who is a Muslim, you are not expected to say anything against the introduction. The moment you mention Sharia, all sorts of discussion is closed. The moment you raise objection on any issue, people label you anti-Islam. All that is sheer intimidation, because the whole idea of law is that it is something that has to be reasoned, debated, and discussed. There is a famous incident involving Sheik Malik, who wrote the treatise on which Muslim laws in Nigeria are supposed to be based. The caliph of his time was so impressed that he said he would make Malik's suggestions law for the whole country. But Malik said no, they could not be imposed. He wanted it discussed, and if a Muslim does not agree with his reasoning, they were not obliged to accept it as law. If Malik could say that, how can anybody in Nigeria say that to merely question what they are doing by introducing Sharia makes us anti-Islam.

There appears to be general support for Sharia in the north. Would you ascribe this to fear?

There is a lot of hysteria, intimidation, and politicking around the issue. Take the issue of Danbazzau. He was well respected, and people know he stands for justice and equity since the time of independence. Yet, because he dared say publicly that we need to be cautious, he was so haunted that he had to buy space in a newspaper to say he is not anti-Sharia. And he is not the only one. Justice Bello said so in his paper at the conference on Sharia held in Zaria. Even the Emir of Kano said we should be careful because not everything that people call Sharia should be accepted.]

You are one of the few people who have expressed the need for caution. What are your fears?

First, the manner of passing the bills. Laws are serious things. There must be a lot of discussion before these things are done. But the lawmakers don't appear to have taken it seriously. They didn't publish the text of the bills, so people don't know what the bills say.

We appear to have been so used to military life that we don't realize there should be open discussion of issues. The bill in Zamfara State did not say anything about women not riding in public bus with men. So, where did the state governor get that from? Is he a military ruler with the power to decree such things? Where did he get the idea that it is included in Sharia that men and women are not to ride together in public transport? This is the kind of intimidation that took place when we issued the press release in which we expressed our worry that the introduction of Sharia will violate women's human rights. The newspaper headlines said we were denouncing and condemning Sharia while in fact we were only cautioning against its use in discriminating against women.

So you are aggrieved with the press reports, too?

Yes, and for two reasons. It will mean that we have been condemned, even by the press, for being against Sharia, and the people in Muslim communities will not want to listen to whatever we have to say because they see us as against them.

The major thing that we worry about is the content of the law. Sharia is just the Arabic word for law. It refers to that which human beings put together to govern their existence and how they live. It is done by human beings, and anything human beings do is subject to discussion by other human beings. None of the schools of laws were elaborated upon until after the prophet died. They were made by human beings, though they did this in view of their religion. Those who wrote the laws were not divine and neither are today's Ulamas. I hope they will not claim to be divine. So the laws should be debated by all of us. In 1957, Yisa Wali affirmed that democracy should be part of how a Muslim community should be ruled. It is not that someone, or even a group of few people, will say, "This is the law, we are the ones who know best." It must be thoroughly debated without using intimidation to keep people quiet.

But Sharia is said to be a divine injunction on how people should live their life. Sharia is people's interpretation of how to put divine laws into practice in their own cultural, political, and economic context. Because it is human-based, humans should discuss it. It is very worrisome that, apart from any argument about democracy, this is a society that just emerged into a democracy with regulations about how laws are made and what should be in the laws. It is surprising that the president and the attorney general, who should ensure that citizens are protected, are throwing up their hands and saying there is nothing they can do. Take, for example, the local government chairman, who said unmarried women will be sacked. That is unconstitutional, and yet the president would say nothing against it. Does it mean they don't care about women's rights? It is not only unconstitutional, it is not justifiable as Sharia. Khadija, the prophet's first convert and wife, was already a successful trader before she married the prophet. I wonder if the people who today condemn those who take issue with some aspects of Sharia would have allowed her to work. If people can take their anti-women prejudices and call it Sharia, it is frightful. If you see the practice of Sharia in other countries, you will see the possibilities for protecting women's rights. Under Sharia, women rights could be either violated or protected. So, we have to know what is involved.

Zamfara State and other states in the north lack roads, healthcare, and education, and they are worrying themselves about taxis. What kind of priority is that? And from what we heard, the support for it was not spontaneous. The government actually solicited it.

You have been to the north a couple of times since the controversy started. What is the mood of the people, especially the women?

There is a range of reactions. One is the uncritical, "Yes, it is good." Because as Muslim women in a country where religion is politicized, they cannot say anything against it. Then there are a number of women who are saying that what is happening is not right and that it is not fair. But these groups are afraid to speak up. Some other women are also exploring ways of ensuring that the laws not violate women's rights.

Some people argue that the Sharia issue is a fad that will soon go away. What is your opinion?

There are two or three ways it could go. One, the sort of intimidation that stopped people from discussing it will continue. So, the place will continue to be autocratic. The second possible result is something I hope won't happen: that it will provoke some states to claim to be more Islamic than others and lead other states to react in ways that could divide the country. What will Muslim people in Oyo, Edo, or even Cross Rivers do if this happens? The third scenario is the one I hope will happen: that people will overcome the intimidation and insist on laws that are just and that respect the rights of women and other people. But it will mean we will all have to speak up and not be afraid.

You are one of those who have been speaking up. What has been your experience?

At times, there have been indirect threats. At other times, there have been people who say, "Don't talk because you or your family or organization could be physically harmed." When we disagree with them, we want to talk to them, but when they disagree with us, they want to use physical power.

There are some other people who have thanked us for speaking up for them and for ourselves. So I keep going. People should be wary of rushing in to proclaim their holiness as if one's holiness depended upon one's announcing it.