BY SHOLA OSHUNKEYE
You can count on him on any issue bordering on human rights, basic freedoms guaranteed not only by the Nigerian constitution but also by international conventions and charters that protect and preserve the dignity of man, guarantee social order, justice, peace and prosperity.
Last Friday, the Nobel Laureate was in a familiar terrain as he was engaged in a conversation on press freedom, and freedom of expression, at the world congress of the International Press Institute, IPI, held in Abuja, the federal capital.
During the conversation, Prof. Soyinka was interviewed by IPI’s Vice President, Woosuk Kenneth Choi, and both men covered a gamut of those issues militating against press freedom and access to information in Nigeria, Africa and other parts of the world.
As they say, the taste of the pudding is in the eating. Please, sit back, relax and enjoy the encounter.
On Buhari’s ‘Transformation’
He is somebody I sometimes describe as a wannabe born-again democrat. Not so long ago, he said, ‘Press freedom, I intend to tamper with it’. And he actually put deed to his word. Somebody who didn’t understand the ethos of journalism, even basic ethos as journalists do not disclose the source of their information, and on account of that actually jailed a couple of journalists for speaking to the ethos of the principle of journalistic integrity.
But here you are today, that same president who is now, as I said, is actually attempting very hard, and mostly successfully, to respect freedom of expression. It means all is not lost for this nation. If it is possible to transform a military dictator who said ‘I intend to tamper with freedom of the press’, and within one generation, that individual is presiding over a democratic nation and trying to deliver to the principles of democracy, I think there is hope yet for this nation.
Now, tomorrow, I don’t want to read in the papers that Wole Soyinka has just given his support to Buhari. I don’t want to hear that. I’m merely pointing out the reformability of humanity when everything else seems lost. That’s the point I’m making.
‘I don’t want to read in the papers that Wole Soyinka has just given his support to Buhari. I don’t want to hear that.’
PERILS OF JOURNALISM
In connection with that, quite tangentially, I picked up this statistics, recently, which I wasn’t aware of. I was astonished to learn that more journalists actually die, are killed, disappear in the field of investigating corruption than even on the battlefield. That’s a very sobering statistics. One didn’t know until a few days ago. …It just goes to show that the domestic perils under which journalists work appear much greater, much more lethal than even declared continuous violence, insurrection even in conflict zones like Syria.
Among you (participants at the IPI Conference), however, you have those who have been through the furnace. We have some of my young colleagues here who I refer to as jailbirds, some of us are senior jailbirds; and we have those who have experienced incarceration. We have those who have been kidnapped. We have those whose families have been kidnapped in lieu of their spouses, who have somehow stepped on sensitive toes in the course of their duty. We have passed through the period when a journalist cannot be found and the wife, even the children, were actually locked up in lieu of their parents. It just shows to us the extent the enemies of freedom would go to cover up their tracks or to ensure their continuity in power at all costs.
‘…The domestic perils under which journalists work appear much greater, much more lethal than even declared continuous violence, insurrection even in conflict zones like Syria.’
However, I want us all to remember that it is not only merely the state that is an enemy of the freedom of speech. We also have the quasi-state. In this very nation, in this very town of Abuja, we have a situation, where an event took place and a journalist made a very innocent remark. And the next thing she knew, she is under a fatwa. She was ordered to be killed at all cost. And finally, she had to leave this nation by the back door. Some of us had the responsibility to find her an alternative place outside.
Those religious fanatics who said she had no right to make this comment, straight away, unleashing mayhem, killing a few people here and there, actually had the nerve to pass the death sentence on a lady practising her profession and simply making simple remark.
That was under a democratic dispensation. And the president of this nation at that time took no action against those who blatantly, arrogantly took upon themselves the power of life and death over a female journalist for making a remark.
It was during a beauty contest (Miss World Pageant in November 2002) which some religious fundamentalists said should not take place because it offended their religious sensibilities. And she said, shut up. Don’t be such hypocrites. But these people turned themselves to the state with the power of life and death, and passed the death sentence on a citizen of this nation; and the government of this nation did nothing. Did not uphold the constitution, did not rebuke those who arrogated themselves with this power. Instead, it was apologising on their behalf and appeasing. That is the way a fascism takes place in a most unexpected period.
They have the presumption of ultimate power over the right of the individual to the freedom of speech. But today, the score (for freedom of speech in Nigeria), I would say, is 45%.
(The IPI Vice President promised that the board would look into the matter, hoping that the 45% will become 95%, to which Soyinka replied…)
If we get to eliminate what I call secret censorship… There is also some pretence that goes on, There is also submission to pressure, much of which the public is not aware of. We have veiled threats. You have the kind of censorship that goes by the name: ‘don’t heat up the polity’ even when we know that the polity requires not just to be heated up but to be fired. There are veiled threats by security forces.
These threats are made. Such threats provoke instant response so that whatever have been threatened are given second thought. Even politicians play a gagging role when they try to say ‘Oh, it is not in the interest of the nation. It is against the nation’s unity…” So, you have those rather ambiguous forms of censorship. If we don’t count that, if we don’t count that aspect which is always grey area, I’m optimistic that in a few more years, we will get 75% guarantee of freedoms.
What should Nigerian journalists do to achieve that 75, 95 %?
Continuing expression of courage; maintenance of the whistle blowing policy in very many areas so that the criminals understand that the hiding zones are shrinking every day; lessons of what’s happening outside our borders; the lessons of the reduction of impunity; seeing that the areas of impunity are shrinking; seeing those formerly seen as untouchable in other countries being not only touched but also being brought under the law that applies to everybody. This affects what goes on on the inside. So, it’s a combination of all of these.
Also, seeing former presidents brought to court for what they thought they got away with; seeing even wives brought to court because sometimes the spouses are even more difficult. Whether wives or husbands, they are not just spouses. They are more problematic than those in whose hands power has been placed.
So, when they look at the president to the south, they look at the president to the north, being brought to book, and the gates of prison being thrown wide open; then, the hard labour, the diligence of journalists who are not bribable, journalists who cannot be easily cowed, then, we will get to 75%, even 80%.
On the allegation that a journalist was in detention in Nigeria
Power never gives up in many, many ways. And power has a way of transforming those who gag the agents of freedom. It’s not too long ago, for instance, that an attempt was made to pass a law which criminalised saying negative things about government people; a law that criminalised hate speech. And how do you define hate speech? In other words, if a journalist writes something which results in a riot or results in violence, then, he would be entitled to be hanged. Yes, it is that impudent. The original phrasing of the law was so ridiculous that I even lost sight of it because I was confident that that law could not be passed in this country; not in this nation.
So, if a journalist goes missing and you write something about the journalist that results in a protestation which results in turn into a kind of damage, then, the writer becomes guilty of a capital offence. That’s what they are saying.
On being at peace with those who hunted him like a common criminal, threw him to jail, etc. in the past. Has he forgiven them?
Forgiveness never comes into it. It just doesn’t. There is always occupational risk. In fact, sometimes, we speak about freedom, we speak about the freedom of expression, and sometimes, we must be honest, the people themselves commit the greatest crimes against one another than the state, sometimes, does. So, that becomes the question of who do you forgive? How many people do you forgive? The people can be the greatest enemies of their own kind.
When you were talking about freedom of speech, my mind went straightaway to the so-called social media. In my view, it has become one of the greatest enemies of the freedom of speech. Because when you abuse a facility, when you reduce that facility to a condition when one doesn’t know what to believe any longer, when what appears in virtual print seems to be backed by facts, by a kind of … believable utterances, but in actual fact based on nothing, you begin to understand why some legislators wanted to pass a law against hate speech. So, for me, it’s those who commit crimes against individuals who have the need to forgive themselves. We just carry on with business as usual.
‘For me, it’s those who commit crimes against individuals who have the need to forgive themselves. We just carry on with business as usual.’
On how he has been able to write so many books, and what inspires him to write
Each time I hear that question, or variations from that question, I have never given myself a satisfactory answer. It’s very, very difficult. But I think it is impossible to live in a very tumultuous nation like this and not be inspired or provoked into writing. Nigeria is a wild place. It’s an impossible country. And I think it’s time to make sense of it and at the same time we are totally overwhelmed by the richness which exists in the contradictions in the pluralism that one encounters and the villainies side-by-side, seeing also the calculating possibilities of those sectors which you once thought totally incorrigible…are what inspire or provoke one to write.
‘…It is impossible to live in a very tumultuous nation like this and not be inspired or provoked into writing.’
Advice to would-be writers
What I say to would-be writers is this: just write. Write and be prepared to collect your rejection slips. When you collect them, open your drawer, shut your rejections slips in them, and write.
On the ‘tearing’ of his green card
No. Tearing up, if you want to be literal, no, I have never torn up the green card. I mean, you try tearing up a plastic card; it’s impossible obviously. But in terms of repudiating my green card, I had no problem with it. I gave up my permanent residency (in the United States) simply because I decided that if that president was elected, I did not want to be part of that community any longer. It’s as elementary as that. And I don’t understand really why people really got excited over it.
It’s the same thing I have been doing all my life. I have moved out of nations. I have decided not to step within certain countries for certain reasons, and I have never been there. However, if something happens, say after five years, and I decide it’s about time I resume diplomatic relation, why not?
But here was somebody who was insulting my race, not just my race, actually specifying Nigerians and Mexicans, and the Asians, and so on. There is something basically ingrained in all of these things-xenophobia and clear racism. (And I said it’s not worth it.) And some stupid Nigerians…When I talk about the people being their own worst enemies, I have things like that in mind. If somebody is insulting all of you, and somebody says I won’t stay in that country if that president is elected, and then, the next thing I know I’m being insulted by fellow Nigerians, it all shows what kind of people we are. That’s what provokes one to write.
But let me say this: I’m on the best terms with Americans everywhere. At least, in this country, I get invited to events everywhere. I’ll probably will be attending the independence anniversary. And when I walked down to the Embassy and I said I wanted to complete my formalities, my green card has suffered some collateral damage from political point of view, so take me off your computer. Instead, I want regular, normal, ordinary visa; B1B2 they call it. So, I handed over the remnants, symbolically, of my card. And I got another visa. Simple, ordinary exchange. No hassle from the diplomats whose country this was. But it was Nigerians who became provocative, made it an issue.
(This marks the end of the conversation between IPI’s Vice President, Woosuk Kenneth Choi, and Professor Soyinka; and the beginning of the question and answer session (Q&A).)
On Donald Trump’s apathy to criticism
(A female journalist from The Week magazine, in Oslo, the home of the Nobel Prize asked Soyinka: About Trump; you have emphasised the importance of criticism as the life blood of press freedom, criticism as the life blood of democracy. But when the independent media criticise President Trump, the most powerful person on the planet, he calls them, repeatedly, fake news and enemies of the people. We are all journalists and we are facing this because this message is going around the world by Presidents who don’t believe in criticism. What do you think is the best way to counter this?)
It’s a cheap ploy that Palmer resorts to whenever he is in trouble. Earlier, we spoke of the negative sides of the social media. But we also know that the social media, or internet generally, have been responsible for some positive changes through the sheer pressure of opinion. So, it’s keeping alive, keeping open the various channels through which people can constantly propose alternatives to existing policies, conduct, malfeasances, exposure, whistle blowing, etc., etc. It’s only through a continuing process, I believe, that that kind of opportunistic ploy can be curtailed and rendered useless. And that is why it is important to clean up this instrument, this mechanism which has resulted in deep changes in many areas of the world. We all know how many regimes have been toppled as a result of the social media.
…It’s only by ensuring that what appears in it , at least most of the time, is credible, that it can become palpable in contesting the kind of opportunism, this kind of language of designating genuine critics, contrary opinions as anti-human agencies, agencies of the devil, agencies of destabilisation. It happens here (in Nigeria). It goes on all the time. (When they get desperate) it results in that very cheap ploy of saying ‘oh yes, it has a destabilising effect; you are taking us back; you are destroying the unity. Same thing as, in this country, when people use the word ‘restructuring’, you would hear ‘oh, you will disintegrate this nation over my dead body’. But all you are talking about is restructuring. But they respond by twisting your language and saying you’re trying to disintegrate, you’re trying to get us to have another civil war. It’s dishonest. And it’s only by insisting on the accuracy and propriety of what one is saying and using the multiplier effect, that one may counter this kind of …response.
‘I gave up my permanent residency (in the United States) simply because I decided that if that president was elected, I did not want to be part of that community any longer. It’s as elementary as that. And I don’t understand really why people really got excited over it.’
On General Sani Abacha
(A Nigerian who described himself as a public affairs analyst, asked Wole Soyinka the reason for his ‘palpable hatred for Abacha, even in death’. He said, “Olusegun Obasanjo, in the Third Republic, went for two terms in office. Prior to that, he was a military Head of State. After that, the man succeeded Murtala Mohammed. A lot of injustice was committed by him and officially, the privatisation exercise, under the Bureau of Public Enterprise, was less than transparent. …Why Abacha all the time?)
If I heard you correctly, I had been very, very hard on Abacha, almost to the exclusion of the other Heads of State. Haaa! Be patient.
Again, you said I have been a critic all my life. That is part of the problem I have with this country, and elsewhere. You do, you’re damned. You don’t, you’re damned. And I have undertaken all kinds of (initiatives) including the Road Safety Corps, my invention, which I collaborated with government, and which I consider absolutely essential.
I have worked with other Heads of State on very quiet ventures which I have not publicised. I have had one-on-one with Heads of State over issues. I asked for a meeting with this Head of State (President Buhari) on behalf of MEND on the problem in the Delta. I had meetings also with former Head of State, (President) Yar’Adua, simply because there were certain proposals from MEND which I felt the government should hear about. I have made suggestions numerous times.
But you see, in the case of this character, called (Abacha)…, oh sorry, he’s dead now…You said I don’t leave Abacha alone, it’s not true. If I’m walking through the street and I see a structure raised in honour of a torturer, a murderer, a thief, so recognised by the entire world that we are still tracing his loot, his loot is still surfacing all over the world, and then, I’m driving along the street and I see a structure in honour of that person, I have a responsibility to tell this President, you cannot be serious about corruption if you leave monument in honour of that leader of misrule. I have nothing personal against Abacha. We met only a couple of times.
Now, as for Obasanjo, I have news for him. And it’s been a progressive thing. You will see me and Obasanjo, fisticuffs today, the following morning, you might see us embracing each other. Circumstances are always important. Even when he was in power, if you remember, numerous times I had criticised him in which virtually the papers were picking up nothing but the acetic exchange between the two of us.
‘If I’m walking through the street and I see a structure raised in honour of a torturer, a murderer, a thief, so recognised by the entire world that we are still tracing his loot, his loot is still surfacing all over the world, and then, I’m driving along the street and I see a structure in honour of that person, I have a responsibility to tell this President, you cannot be serious about corruption if you leave monument in honour of that leader of misrule.’
Finally, I believe Obasanjo has really crossed the red line because he is trying to put himself at the head of a recovery process. He is trying to hijack a recovery process in this nation. And I say he is one of the least worthy of former Heads of State to lead that kind of movement. And I have brought out a publication about that. The title is in Latin but it means: Who watches the watchman? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That publication is coming out simply because I will like to see new blood in government in this nation. And I think these corrupt, hypocritical geriatrics should stop recycling themselves. They should stop trying to co-opt their former cronies to take over the reins of government in this country. And I’m inviting people on July 3rd, Freedom Park, Lagos, when this little pamphlet will be published in which finally, we confront Obasanjo with crimes of the past which, incidentally, are not being newly articulated. But this nation forgets very, very fast. No sooner does one come out with one kind of bravura, kind of criticism, than everybody starts hailing the messiah. So, I say again, very often, that people are their own greatest enemies. Obasanjo is one of the greatest hypocritical leaders this nation has ever produced.
On his apparent healthy status
It’s a mystery. Maybe it runs in the family. What happens is one of these days, we are looking so healthy but suddenly we just drop dead. And people would say ‘Oh, but he was okay yesterday!’ I think it’s a family thing.
