Between Linda Ikeji and the 1st Amendment

Yesterday on twitter, I got involved in a long running debate about a post that appeared on Miss Linda Ikeji’s blog relating to the one time actor and now Delta State Commissioner for Arts and Culture, Richard Mofe-Damijo.

The post itself was all of 3 lines which began by wishing him a happy 51st birthday and ended by informing her readers, rightly or wrongly, that he had moved into a new mansion which ‘is said to have cost’ N250m.

It turns out that, beneath the cool exterior of Mr Mofe-Damijo lies a prima donna as he then took to twitter and in a series of tweets, began by ‘warning’ Ms Ikeji to stop spreading lies about him and then for good measure, he left us in no doubt as to what he thought was a ‘dignified career path’ and what wasnt. He was also sure to let us know that he would ordinarily not ‘dignify her type’ with a response but was only doing so because he had been inundated with phone calls from his friends asking what was going on.

From his tweets, it was clear his beef was with the value Ms Ikeji had placed on his home although he didnt quite tell us what the supposed real value is (probably recognising that that would be a lose lose battle for him). It is my personal opinion that the Commissioner is rather silly and takes himself too seriously. 10 years ago, acting in Nigeria was looked down upon and actors were very easily referred to as ‘their type’. I am unclear as to what Mr Mofe-Damijo is benchmarking as a ‘dignified career path’ compared to Ms Ikeji’s gossip blogging – his acting which brought him fame and fortune or his current government job?

But let’s leave that and move on to something more important.

In the course of the debates, I was sure to defend Ms Ikeji, not because I have ever met her or even read her blog (I dont), but because I think there is a more important principle at stake.

It is also my personal opinion that the greatest words ever put down on paper by a politician in any country is the American Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st Amendment. They are generally attributed to James Madison who had been mentored by the incomparable visionary, Thomas Jefferson, a man light years ahead of his time. Madison himself went on to become President and would govern by the rights he had authored and learn to live within its constraints.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The emphasis is mine. Pause and think about the above statement for a minute. Madison wrote those words in 1789 or thereabouts. He went on to become President 20 years later from 1809 to 1817. The man was clearly thinking less about himself and more about the country because enshrining such rights into the constitution is bound to be at best a nuisance for any leader.

Not only was Madison granting the press freedom, by enshrining it in the constitution, he was making it impossible for the government to take that right away as that could only be done by the Supreme Court.

Mr Madison, who was part of the establishment along with his mentor Mr Jefferson, were essentially protecting Americans from the government they were part of. This is a hard concept to grasp. The government was effectively saying ‘look, we dont trust ourselves with power. Our tendency is to always trample over individual liberties especially as we have the guns and money so we want you to be able to at least restrain us. And one of the ways you can do this is by being able to say whatever you want about us without us punishing you for it. You can also have a free press that can investigate us and write whatever they like about us and we wont be able to retaliate against them’.

Like I said, these are hard concepts. As an example, in Nigeria, those who wrote the constitution granted political office holders (themselves) immunity from prosecution and we cannot get them to take it away even after 13 years of democracy. It is not enough that they have the guns and money, they also want to be able to rob us blind and for us not to be able to do anything about it.

When Americans hold their founding fathers in deep awe, it is because of things like these. When those men had a choice between self aggrandizement and selflessness, they went for selflessness 100%.

To the 2nd point – why freedom of speech? Why not freedom to yawn in public? Why did the American founding fathers consider this right so important that they felt the need to enshrine it in the constitution?

The simple answer is that yawning is unlikely to offend anyone and even if it does offend, it is not a right that can be taken away. That is to say, even if you were to yawn in front of a government official who had access to soldiers and money, he cannot take that right away from you if your yawning were to somehow offend him.

But freedom of speech is serious business. Madison and friends knew that the whole point of freedom of speech is that is bound to offend someone from time to time. Without this ability to offend, freedom of speech is infact useless and there would be no point to it. It is fine if I was to say something that offended say a colleague at work. I could easily apologize and we would end it there. Essentially we are equals and we would deal with it as equals. 

However it is a completely different ball game when someone in government is offended by something you say. If a fight were to ensue as a result, it could never possibly be a fair one. Government, like I said earlier, is leviathan by virtue of their access to guns and money. And most importantly, the right to free speech can be taken away by imprisonment or generally harm being done to you.

So we come to decision time – given that we know that the freedom of speech is bound to offend someone, especially people in govt, and we also know that if an ordinary citizen were to get into a quarrel with the govt, it cant ever be an equal fight – is this right to free speech as well as a free press worth defending inspite of its potential to cause offence? Mr Madison thought it abslutely was.

Several years later, Mr Madison’s judgement was proved correct when two journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, took advantage of the press freedom rights to essentially bring down Richard Nixon with the Watergate scandal. Is it possible that Nixon could have been innocent of the allegations against him and those two journalists ended up tainting his name forever? The answer is it doesnt matter. What was more important was their right to investigate him and then write whatever allegations they had against him.

Now, I am not getting carried away here – Ms Ikeji is no journalist. She sells gossip on her blog for which there is apparently a huge market in Nigeria. She did not create this market, she merely, like any smart entrepreneur, saw the current when it served and took it before losing her ventures….to paraphrase the Bard.

Is Mr Mofe-Damijo’s house really worth N250m as she suggested on her blog? The answer, again, is that it doesnt matter. What is more important is that she has a right to publish it. Mr Mofe-Damijo is a government official and Ms Ikeji is a private citizen. She, like any other Nigerian, has a right to say what she hears or sees without fear of offending his feelings. Her right to say it, is far more important than the possibility that Mr Mofe-Damijo might get offended by it.

Nigeria is a country where 70% of all money in circulation is government related. A local government Chairman is capable of taking away a citizen’s rights not to talk of higher up the political chain like governors and senators. Every day government tramples on the rights of ordinary citizens not just by arrest or physical harm but by sheer evil policies that are designed to serve their own interests above those of everybody else. And come election time, they do all they can to take away the last right we have – the right to kick them out of office if we are unhappy with them – by rigging elections and manipulating our votes with the sheer array of powers they have at their disposal.

In this fight between we the citizens as David and the government as Goliath, the right to be able to say what we want about them is the one stone we have in our sling. The Nigerian government would never have invented blogging, twitter, facebook or the internet if it was down to them. You only need to look at the tight grip they maintain on NTA to understand how much this freedom of speech is able to offend those in power and how far they will go to curtail it. 

I dont know Ms Ikeji and I dont care for her blog. Not because I dont like gossip, I actually do, but I prefer political gossip as opposed to the ‘celebrity’ variety she peddles. This is a matter of personal taste. I read Guido Fawkes blog here in the UK to get gossip on what’s going on in the corridors of power in Westminster i.e. what you wont read in The Guardian or Daily Telegraph. The entire point of that blog is to offend politicians specifically Labour politicians as Guido is of course Tory leaning. There are equivalent blogs on the left attacking politicians on the right.

But if she somehow offends a government official, then I know where my loyalties lie, absolutely no questions. Because it isnt really about Ms Ikeji – there is no way you can make a law to stop a blogger from speaking freely that it wont be used for something else, this is the nature of government and what Mr Madison tried to guard against. Using a random example, when the UK government wanted to seize assets belonging to Iceland after that country’s banks collapsed in 2008, they used anti-terror laws to do it! Laws that were designed to protect citizens from terror attacks were somehow used to seize another country’s assets. Even though they were justified in seizing the assets, it goes to show what a government can do when it is determined to do it.

I hear Mr Mofe-Damijo is exploring ‘legal options’ against Ms Ikeji. I am desperately praying he does this. For one, it will help us know what is inside Nigeria’s libel laws which were no doubt written before the internet was invented. It is also a battle he cannot win. If he takes offence at his house being valued at N250m, not only will he need to prove that Ms Ikeji knowingly and deliberately overstated the value of his home, he will also need to tell us the real value. At that point it will then become a matter for the public to decide exactly how much is too much or too little for a Commissioner of his stature. In a land where 70% of the people are poor, your guess is as good as mine as to what will be an acceptable value for his house.

I think Mr Mofe-Damijo, as is typical with government officials in Nigeria, was being a bully. I also find it hard to believe that Mrs Ikeji deliberately overstated the value of his home to get page views. At the very worst, she’s guilty of not double checking her facts before publishing, a crime of which she is merely 1 in 1,000,000 guilty persons in Nigeria. But there’s nothing to say she wont learn or get better in future. I dont even blog regularly but over the years as I have gotten more people reading my posts, I have learnt to be a bit more accurate with my facts before publishing anything. It is what any normal person would do – the more readers you get, the more you are forced to be more responsible – and there is no evidence that Ms Ikeji is an abnormal person.

 

The road is long for Nigeria and we will only get there by winning small battles that broaden the power base in the country and create a system where we at least have a voice that government is forced to listen to. Anything else is a recipe for Why Nations Fail.

FF

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Between Linda Ikeji and the 1st Amendment

  1. I really enjoyed reading your excellently written post so you will understand my disappointment with its cavalier treatment of the other fundamental human right that precedes Freedom of Speech and I quote from the American Declaration of Independence (1776)…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This latter is a right that Linda’s post would, and going by the tweets posted indeed has, denied Mr Mofe Damijo by intruding on his privacy AND implied without even the slightest reference to fact, that he may own a property he should not. Yes, she never SAID this last but it was a nuance your reply and many others picked up and went to town with.
    You are clearly a well-read individual and your writing indicates a logical mind so I found it most uncomfortable also that you did not pause to reflect on how Linda’s pursuit of her Happiness could injure Richard’s – you apparently see no wrong in that because she has a right to Freedom of Speech, moreso as she is a member of the press ( a blogger) engaged in the legitimate satisfaction of the public’s thirst for information. William Blackstone, a noted authority on English Law once stated that “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights.” This interpretation of inalienable rights of the individual in does not allow its benefits to flow ONE WAY i.e to Linda to the exclusion of Richard.
    Put simply, no-one has a right to put a value of what aspect of our rights in society are superior to the other – Freedom of Speech does not alienate the Freedom to act in Self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation). Here’s a tweet exchange I had with @omojuwa on this topic,
    Me: you forgot the part about the sanctity of Truth & “innocent until proven guilty” Omojuwa: “innocent until proven guilty”? She wrote a story, she didn’t sentence him to death.”
    Me:: “My point exactly: one is accused (guilty) then one has to disagree (prove innocence). Meanwhile reputation is dead :-(. There are many ways to “kill” – with SMS/Ttwitter/Email and Web, one of the most painful is death of reputation. Here’s an example: http://t.co/knlPSR30 . Linda performs a needed & legitimate but ALL our rights need to be respected.
    Apologies for sermonising but with your talent, there are a whole lot of people who need to hear your voice SPEAK TRUTH TO LIFE. Including the admirable Linda.

  2. 8Wells: Thanks for your comments.

    You’ve sort of made answering your post easier.
    You quoted from the Declaration of Independence (1776) and I based my post on the 1st Amendment (1789).

    Now I dont want to speculate too much but I wonder what the founding fathers learnt from 1776 to 1789 that made them decide that 10 other Amendments were neccesary through the bill of rights.
    Afterall if all men were created equal, why pass an amendment saying one set of men (Congress) shall not abridge the rights of another set of men (the people)?

    The answer to my mind is very simple – yes, all men are created equal provided that one of the men is not in govt. This is a very important point.
    A private citizen cannot be equal to govt because a citizen cannot take away the govt’s rights whereas govt can take away your rights.
    This is why Madison and friends went the extra length to protect those rights. If it was not a problem, they wont have bothered I am sure. If govt officials could be relied on not to take away other citizens rights to free speech, there would be no problem in the world. But this is not the reality of the world we live.

    There’s also this issue of ‘truth’ and taking offence. A story does not need to be a lie before someone takes offence at it, this is the problem. Again, you will also need to be convinced that someone wrote a story with deliberate falsehood to cause offence.
    Some people can take offence at their name being spelt wrongly, it doesnt matter if it was a honest mistake by the person who spelt the name. If they have power, they can go further by punishing the person just because they were offended.
    There was a wikileaks story about how one Chinese official googled his name and found a story that he didnt like about himself. Because of that, Google was summoned and not only were they forced to take the particular story down, they were then subjected to all kinds of censorship after that. Just because of one man.
    A private citizen cannot do that, but a govt official can do it.
    Bear in mind, there was no evidence that the google link was false, just that the guy didnt like what he saw.

    RMD has not told us how much his house is worth, yet his fake outrage has caused a lot of people to jump to the conclusion that Linda is lying or her story was untrue.
    How does anyone know this? Just because RMD said so?

    Funny

  3. I just discovered this blog and have been racing to catch up. Yeah I live under a rock. What strikes me as curious is the fact that so far, this piece has generated the most comments from when the blog was started. This just goes to show the kind of people we are. Extremely concerned about serious things. Aren’t we now……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s