NGE’s Warning Signs: Press Freedom, Politics and Security Ahead of 2027

Iyobosa Uwugiaren argues that the communiqué issued by the Nigerian Guild of Editors after its meeting in Kano recently, is both a defence of the democratic ecosystem and a reminder that the media itself must carry the responsibilities that accompany freedom. The Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), at its Standing Committee meeting in Kano on September 11, 2026, issued a communiqué that deserves more than the routine attention usually given to professional associations’ statements. Coming a few months before the 2027 general elections, the Guild’s intervention touches on some of the central questions confronting the nation’s democracy: press freedom, the conduct of security agencies, especially the Nigeria Police Force, the political space available to parties and candidates, electoral fairness, economic reforms, infrastructure and national security. Taken together, the communiqué reads as both a defence of the democratic ecosystem and a reminder that the media itself must carry the responsibilities that accompany freedom. Its most remarkable feature is the Guild’s concern about what it describes as the increasing violation of press freedom through the harassment, intimidation and prosecution of journalists by security agencies. The reference to cybercrime laws and other legislation with the potential to undermine legitimate journalism should be taken seriously. Because a democracy cannot thrive where journalists operate under the constant fear that critical reporting may attract arrest, intimidation or prosecution. Equally, press freedom cannot mean immunity from the law. Journalists, like every other citizen, are subject to laws governing defamation, fraud, privacy, incitement and other unlawful conduct. The critical issue is whether such laws are applied consistently and transparently, or whether they become instruments for silencing uncomfortable reporting. That distinction is fundamental. The NGE, a professional body of editors, is therefore right to draw attention to the chilling effect that the misuse of legal powers can have on journalism. A journalist does not necessarily have to be imprisoned for press freedom to suffer. The threat of arrest, repeated invitations by security agencies, expensive litigation or prolonged prosecution can be enough to discourage investigative reporting. The real test for democratic maturity is not whether government tolerates favourable reporting. It is whether institutions can tolerate scrutiny, criticism and uncomfortable questions. The Guild’s appeal to governments and members of the public to respect press freedom is consequently important. Equally important is its call for aggrieved persons and institutions to use the Media Ombudsman rather than resort to threats, intimidation or violence against journalists and media organisations. That suggestion points to a necessary principle: disputes arising from journalism should, as far as possible, be resolved through institutions rather than coercion. A complaints mechanism is useful only if citizens know about it, can access it easily and have confidence that complaints will be handled fairly and promptly. The Guild and its partner organisations should therefore consider publishing regular reports on complaints received, cases resolved and the general effectiveness of the mechanism. No doubt, transparency would strengthen public confidence in the system. The Guild’s insistence that journalists maintain high professional and ethical standards is equally significant. It calls for fairness, objectivity, accuracy and factuality. This is not merely an obligation imposed on journalists by professional codes. It is also a defence mechanism for the media itself. At a time when social media has distorted the boundaries between professional journalism, “citizen reporting,” political propaganda and outright misinformation, credibility has become one of the media’s most valuable assets. An inaccurate or sensational report can damage not only the individual concerned but also the credibility of the institution that publishes it. Press freedom therefore carries responsibilities. The media cannot demand accountability from public institutions while refusing to submit itself to standards of accuracy and fairness. Yet professional responsibility should never become a red herring for political control of the press. The appropriate response to unethical journalism is transparent professional redress—not intimidation. The NGE’s intervention on political campaigns is equally timely. With preparations for the 2027 general elections gathering momentum, the Guild calls on federal and state governments to create an enabling environment for all political parties and candidates to campaign freely and fairly. It specifically mentions the lawful display of party symbols and the airing of campaign slogans. Reports from different states in the last few days indicated that some governors were preventing their opponents from displaying their posters and billboards. This is unhelpful to democratic principles. It is also an important reminder that democratic competition does not begin on election day. It begins long before voters enter polling booths. The ability of political parties to organise, communicate their programmes and reach voters is an essential element of an open electoral system. The Guild’s call for INEC and other institutions to provide a level playing field for ruling and opposition parties also deserves attention. Electoral credibility depends not only on the final announcement of results but on the conditions under which political competition takes place. Indeed, a formally competitive election can still generate public distrust if some participants believe that state institutions have been used against them or that access to political space has been uneven. But the concept of a “level playing field” needs to move beyond rhetoric. What does fairness mean in practice? Does it include equal enforcement of campaign regulations? Equal access to public spaces? Fair treatment by security agencies? Non-discriminatory application of electoral laws? Reasonable access to public broadcasting? Protection of campaign events? These are the practical questions that should accompany the principle. The Guild is also right to call on politicians and other actors to conduct issue-based campaigns and avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Nigeria’s political environment has repeatedly demonstrated how quickly political language can deepen existing social, ethnic or religious tensions. There are signs across the country that unless politicians keep to the rules of the game, this might ignite a serious political and ethno-religious crisis that might be difficult to manage. The argument is that political parties and actors have a responsibility to compete without turning opponents into enemies or encouraging supporters to regard political disagreement as a justification for hostility and violent crisis. The media, too, has a huge responsibility here. It should report political claims vigorously but should not become an uncritical amplifier of inflammatory rhetoric by politicians. Political campaigns should be scrutinised for their policies, records, promises and evidence rather than reduced to personality contests and partisan accusations. The recent intervention by one of the most influential media entrepreneurs and owner of THISDAY/ARISE Media Group, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, requesting politicians to focus on issue-based campaigns, was timely. The communiqué’s treatment of national security presents another interesting balance. While commending security agencies for successes against terrorism, banditry and other forms of criminality, the Guild also called for sustained and coordinated efforts towards lasting peace, security and national unity. That formulation is important. It recognises the legitimate role of security agencies while also acknowledging that military or policing successes do not automatically amount to permanent security. The security challenges in the country are complex. They involve terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and other forms of criminality, but according to experts, sustainable security also requires functioning institutions, economic opportunity, justice, community trust and respect for citizens’ rights. There is, consequently, no inherent contradiction between supporting security operations and demanding accountability from security agencies. Indeed, democratic oversight can strengthen security institutions by increasing public trust in them. The safety of journalists operating in insecure environments should also be part of this conversation. Reporters covering conflict, banditry and communal violence frequently work under conditions of considerable risk. Protecting journalists is not simply a media-sector issue; it is part of protecting the public’s right to know what is happening in the country. The NGE’s comments on government reforms and federal roads have expanded the communiqué beyond the traditional concerns of a media organisation. The Guild urged the Federal Government to remain committed to its reforms while ensuring that citizens’ welfare remains at the centre of policy. This is a reasonable democratic principle, but it also raises a difficult question: how should the social costs and benefits of reforms be assessed? Governments have the responsibility to pursue policies that they believe will improve the economy, but citizens also have the right to ask whether those policies are producing tangible improvements in their lives. The burning conversation around the removal of the fuel subsidy is a shining example. The media has an important role in providing that scrutiny through evidence-based reporting rather than simply repeating official claims or popular grievances. The Guild’s concern about deteriorating federal roads fits into the same framework. Infrastructure is not merely a construction issue. Roads affect food distribution, transportation costs, business activity, regional integration and household welfare. Its diagnosis is wide-ranging and, in several areas, compelling. Its prescriptions, however, are mostly appeals. The Guild calls for governments to respect press freedom, political parties to behave responsibly, INEC to be impartial, politicians to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, security agencies to sustain their efforts, the government to improve roads and reforms to remain focused on citizens’ welfare. The Guild, as the leading professional body representing Nigerian mass media editors, occupies a distinctive position. It is not merely an observer of the democratic process. Its members help determine what issues receive prominence, how political claims are framed and how governments are held to account. That position gives the NGE considerable responsibility. If it is concerned about shrinking political space, it must also encourage balanced coverage of political actors. If it demands accountability from government, it must demand accountability from the media. If it objects to inflammatory politics, it must ensure that headlines and editorial choices do not unnecessarily inflame public sentiment. If it champions press freedom, it must demonstrate why credible journalism is worth protecting. The Kano communiqué should therefore be seen as a starting point rather than a conclusion. As Nigeria moves towards the 2027 elections, the real challenge will be converting these principles into sustained institutional practice. Press freedom must be protected without sacrificing journalistic standards. Security must be pursued without unnecessarily restricting legitimate reporting. Political competition must be open without becoming reckless or inflammatory. Electoral institutions must command confidence through impartiality and transparency. And economic reforms must ultimately be judged by their consequences for citizens. The Guild’s message is, at its core, a reminder that democracy is sustained not by elections alone but by the institutions and freedoms that make elections meaningful. The coming All Nigeria Editors Conference (ANEC), starting in Enugu, is a huge opportunity for the editors to expand the conversation around all the suggested issues and identify ways to engage the fundamental issues that border on the nation’s democracy.