Participating online journalists and bloggers at a workshop on conflict-sensitive reporting have blamed politicians for resorting to incendiary comments which are liable to aggravate violence and hatred amongst different communities in the country. But a university don disagrees saying journalists have a responsibility to edit hate speeches out of their stories.

The electioneering campaigns for the 2023 elections have witnessed a large churning out of hate speeches capable of dividing the citizens along ethnic and religious divides.

The group of bloggers and online journalists, participants at a training organized by the International Press Centre on Tuesday, on conflict-sensitive reporting ahead of the elections with the support of the European Union. The participants gave their views after listening to the two sessions of the training facilitated by Dr Ruqayyah Yusuf Aliyu, a lecturer from the faculty of communication at Bayero University, who spoke extensively on conflict-sensitive reporting skills and methodology and Dr Yunusa Zakari Yau, Executive Director of the Centre for Information Technology (CITAD), who spoke on hate speech in election reporting- observation from the field and pitfalls to avert.

One of the participants, Mr Onoja Johnson Baba explained that Nigerian politicians are the major challenges journalists are encountering with purveying of fake news. He wants politicians to be held accountable for promoting hateful expressions which can generate violence and conflicts in the society.

“If you are reporting an event, sometimes you quote words verbatim, so you can imagine that kind of situation if you are using their words in your story, this thing will bring up issues, because the kind of statement they are making, some of their moves, those things can incite violence.

“Politicians contribute a lot to some of these things and I don’t know if they can be held accountable for these things. and even our code and some of those things we were trained about, the press codes in covering the elections, the aspects that have to do with politicians being responsible for this and that, are they even aware of these things; are they even reading them? And if they go contrary to some of the things there, can journalists hold them accountable? Are there even ways we can make them abide by the media code?

Mr Horiautus also argued that politicians are putting journalists in dilemma on the stories to report, due to their hateful expressions in their political activities. He noted that since the duty of the journalist is to report facts about any events, he stated that it becomes difficult when politicians are not restricted by what they can say. He encouraged interfacing with politicians on how to reduce their inflammatory comments at the campaigns

“While we are doing our jobs as journalists and patriots, we should also look at things at the other end, let us balance this thing because there is a level of tolerance we can endure as a journalist”, he stated.

Mr Steve Enoch, another participant also agreed that hate speech and conflict instigations are largely emanating from the political class, he, however, states that journalists must always do their best to change the narrative.

“Politicians, contribute largely to it, but I believe any professional journalist or any professional media house we have the mandate to censor what the politicians are saying because if politicians say bad things, they will hold the media responsible”, he noted.

Contrary to their opinions, however, Dr Ruqayyah Yusuf Aliyu, in her presentation, stated that it is the duty of journalist to mitigate the spread of violence-inciting information. She explained that the significance of campaigns in the electioneering process, cannot be taken away from the expected growth in democracy. She, however, noted the downside of campaigns, particularly whenever there is the instigation of violence among the young ones, who are determined to erupt conflict whenever there are differences in interest, it is the responsibility of journalists to ensure that conflicts are well managed in their reports.

She noted that responsible journalism is the only tool that can reduce the effects of conflict to emanate into uncontrollable violence. “It is part of the responsibility of the media to be conflict-sensitive in reporting all aspects of democracy and especially campaigns at the elections. This is because campaigns are activities or events that are prone to result in violence, and therefore the media needs to take that responsibility of ensuring that it is reduced to the barest minimum because conflicts are inevitable.”

Charging the participants on the needed equipment to report conflict matters during the elections, Dr Aliyu encouraged the participants to be familiar with the Electoral Act 2022, and the Code of Elections coverage for the coming elections. She also advised journalists to be more technologically inclined, and also be independent.

“We need to know that over 200 million Nigerians rely on us for verified and truthful information, and therefore, we must not compromise that.”, Dr Aliyu noted in her lectures.

In the same vein, Dr Yunusa Zakari Yau, while speaking about the effect of hate speech explained that despite several warnings to the political class to desist from churning hateful expressions that can lead to violence, it is growing in the society.

He noted that politicians and state actors are encouraging intolerant culture for their selfish gains, and as a result of that, hate speech has become a growing concern in Nigeria, particularly during the electioneering period.

He, however, noted that it is the duty of journalists, who are professionally bound to disseminate information to curb the promotion of hate speech in the country. He further explained that journalists must be sensitive, and be on guard against the purveying of incendiary comments either directly or subconsciously.

“In spite of admonition by key stakeholders that we should not deploy hate speech, especially in electioneering campaigns, the volume of hate speech keeps increasing almost on a yearly basis. Ironically also, in spite of its occupation of a central place in our political discourse, and its increased visibility across the media space, there is such imprecision about the term that it is becoming a catchphrase that means everything and nothing in particular, a term that is thrown against those whose views you do not share or whose view has offended you.

“There is the danger that hate speech with its low analytical value could become the instrument to criminalize dissent and public criticism against the government or even promote a culture of intolerance as every criticism or opposing opinion is tagged hate speech.

“The reason for this is that politicians and their supporters often profit from the deployment of hate speech in electioneering campaigns while being shielded from the consequences of such

“But politicians and their supporters are not the processors of news: it is journalists who select and pass what can appear or be aired in the media. This is why journalists need to be careful not to give space or air time to hate speech”, analysed

Meanwhile, Mr Lanre Arogundade, the Executive Director of IPC, in his remarks to the discussion noted that Abiding by the Nigerian Media Code of Election Coverage is the solution to the conflict and hate speech in the country. Accepted by the top media platforms in the country, Mr Arogundade further stated that the code is a powerful tool to cover the election successfully.

He also noted that the IPC will engage the political parties through its umbrella body to mitigate the advancement of incendiary statements which can further generate conflict in the campaign