Re: Phantom coups, secret trials? No, please

DSuleiman Aear Dr Suleiman,

I have read your take on the alleged coup case carefully, and I want to say upfront that I agree with you on some key points. You are right about the gravity of the offence, the danger of loose language, the need for restraint, and above all the importance of open trial and proper presentation of evidence. On matters of life and death such as treason, the bar must be high. On that, we are on the same page. I could have said all this over the phone or on WhatsApp, but I felt it was better to put my thoughts down properly and send them to you.

Where I differ slightly is on the question of whether the current reporting necessarily points to a “phantom coup” or an influence operation. Nigerian history suggests otherwise. From the Dimka coup of 1976 to Orkar in 1990, and even the alleged coup cases under Abacha in 1995, early reporting was always fragmentary, intelligence led  and often contradictory. Material evidence was not presented to the public at the reporting stage; it emerged later, during tribunals or trials, if at all. That has been the pattern, for better or worse.

On sources, I agree that over-reliance on anonymity is risky. But in national security reporting, especially involving serving officers, anonymity has always been the rule rather than the exception. The ethical test for newsrooms is corroboration and caution, not necessarily naming sources who cannot safely speak on record. Timelines shifting, suspects increasing, and narratives evolving are also not unusual in coup investigations. Both the Orkar and 1995 cases expanded significantly as investigations progressed. What appears as contradiction to readers is often the result of intelligence discovery still in motion.

On language, your point about qualifiers is well taken. That is a standards issue we must continue to take seriously. But I would hesitate to read editorial lapses as evidence of a coordinated influence operation, which is itself a very serious claim.

Finally, on trials, I fully agree with you. Given the severity of the allegations and the penalties involved, an open trial and presentation of evidence would serve both justice and public confidence. Even where military processes are involved, transparency is crucial.

I see your column not as something to dismiss, but as part of a necessary conversation about how the media reports national security issues in a democracy like ours. I thought it was important to share where I agree with you, and where I see the issue a bit differently.

Regards

Anonymous Senior Editor

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your email and for your views, which are very interesting and enlightening to read. I particularly like the historical context that you bring into the discussion, which I find quite insightful and enriching. I am also happy that we agree on many aspects of the article, and more importantly, the case. So once again, thanks very much for your comments, which are 100% professional and collegial.

Yes, you are right that for a continuously evolving story such as this, it is difficult to get all the facts right or all the evidence available at once. I certainly agree with this.

However, permit me to highlight three additional issues in the overall reporting—not just by any particular newspaper—before I clarify my position on phantom coup and influence operation.

First, the inconsistencies in the reporting, both by the media and the authorities, are too serious to be subordinated to the practical demands and difficulties of everyday reporting in a high-stakes political story such as this. Just this morning, in the ThisDay newspaper, the Minister of Defence was saying that he, too, had been targeted, God forbid. This could be true. But it throws a lot of doubt on the reported timeline of the plot. If it is true that the plot was to be carried out on May 29, 2023, as current reporting claims, how could General Musa have been on the target list when he had not yet been appointed as Chief of Defence Staff by May 29 2023? This is just one of several serious inconsistencies from both the media and, especially, from the authorities the authorities.

Secondly, a source is not always the same as evidence, certainly not for a story of this magnitude. A source is a link to the evidence, not the evidence itself. For this story, my understanding is that the reporter or their editor should demand to see at least some material evidence, and even more importantly, the reporter should tell the reader in the story that they had seen the evidence. This remains true even if the evidence is of the kind that cannot be shared with the public, or the source is highly placed. We have all written or seen attributions like “documents seen by this reporter/newspaper”, “in text messages or emails we have reviewed”, “according to the financial records that we examined”, etc. To the best of my knowledge, I have not yet seen a single line like that in all the reporting on this case so far, where a newspaper or reporter says they had seen the evidence of the alleged plot by themselves. In fact, for important stories based on anonymous sources like this, it is also helpful for the reporter to actually mention the number of sources consulted anonymously, and some go as far as to indicate that the sources are not related to each other, rather than just to say “multiple sources”. For example, “for this story, we spoke to 13 people” … “some of whom are unrelated”, etc.

Third, we must note that across all the reporting on this issue, we have not heard from those accused or their lawyers. We are hearing only from the “sources”, all of them anonymous sources. For an allegation as serious as this, the accused persons must be entitled to lawyers, even if they are serving officers in the military. For me, this is a serious blind spot in this case so far. Nigeria is a democracy, and the media and the public should be able to hear from at least the lawyers of those accused.

Finally, sir, the issue of a phantom coup and influence operation. As I made clear in the article, I do not deny that there has been a coup plot. My point is that Nigerians have not been provided with concrete evidence of such a plot up to this point, either by the military authorities alleging the coup, or the media reporting the case. Moreover, since the issue is a matter of life and death for those involved and matter of truncating our democracy, Nigerians deserve to be furnished with concrete evidence of the plot, or told clearly what evidence journalists reporting the case have seen, even if they cannot share it with the public. Given my reading of Nigerian politics and coups, I do not dismiss the possibility of a coup, but I also cannot dismiss the possibility of an influence operation, after all, both real coups and phantom coups have been reported in Nigeria before.

Personally, I stand firmly against any effort, public or clandestine, by any persons aimed at truncating our democracy, whether in the form of a military coup or otherwise. In fact, I have written against any kind of talk about military coups in Nigeria in these very pages not long ago. In one of my previous columns warning against the return of the military, I ended by saying that: “For Nigeria, the age of military is over, and while our democracy may be wobbling, it will grow and endure. Let’s let it”. This remains my position, today and forever. But this is why if the military authorities are saying, on both sides of their mouth, that there is a coup, then it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence of it, and that the trial of the accused persons must be conducted in in public in an open court.

Thank you once again, and best regards

Suleiman

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.