The role of the media in the Nigerian transition to civilian rule, 1983–1999

Observers of the Nigerian transition to civilian rule accused the Nigerian media early in the transition of playing the “politics of confusion” in the country for undermining their role as the voice of the common people and the watchdog of government. They supported their view by alleging that the uninhibited nature of the Nigerian media has warranted its members the privilege of crossing state boundaries in search of newsworthy information. As such, reporters in one state could publish untrue or un-researched information about politicians in another state, thereby inciting the citizens of that state against their leaders and vice versa. Or, uncharacteristically, they could resort to praise singing of corrupt leaders, thereby undermining the grievances of the ordinary citizen. Although distinction has to be made between “government” and “private” media, as each party was treated differently in this allegation, this study posits that this single act of condescension by one of Africa's most “vibrant” media set the tone for the “murky” outcome of the transitions. The study shows how the Nigerian military government, in an effort to consolidate power, took advantage of the “multi-voiced” Nigerian media by creating a hostile environment that will prevent the media from catering for the masses of Nigerian people. Hence, instead of focusing on real issues affecting the people, as well as will bring about development and improvement of lives, the media dwelt on criticizing every act of the government. The government returned the favor with harassment, arrest, and detention of journalists and media personnel. A pattern of widespread harassment ensued before and during the Nigerian transition to civilian rule. As a result, the Nigerian media merely played a minimal role in dictating the procedures and outcome of the elections leading up to the transition. This study concludes that the Nigerian media, having once lost its footing, can still regain its original role as the voice of the common people by depending more on the people, instead of the government, for financial, editorial, and moral support.