First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

BBC roasted in Nigeria for ‘giving oxygen to terroris...

Defend Truth


BBC roasted in Nigeria for ‘giving oxygen to terrorists’


Azubuike Ishiekwene is the editor-in-chief at Leadership Media Group.

In the media’s quest to understand and highlight insurgency, a scourge that has claimed more than 35,000 lives since 2009, destroyed thousands of families and created in Nigeria’s north-east one of Africa’s largest pools of internally displaced persons, should the BBC be stoking the flames?

After the BBC’s Africa Service promoted a story on 22 July 2022 of an interview with the bandit warlords of Zamfara State in northeast Nigeria, a senior Nigerian journalist, Kadaria Ahmed, called out the broadcaster in a tweet and subsequent op-ed article.

Kadaria, herself a former BBC producer and now CEO of Radio Now 95.3FM Lagos, said the interview would give the terrorists oxygen, stoke hysteria and bring nothing but pain and misery to hundreds of victims and their families.

In the thread that followed, the BBC Eye co-founding executive producer and others weighed in and disagreed with Kadaria. They said that without understanding the enemy you cannot solve the problem. Or perhaps get the government to see the seriousness.

Not long after the exchange, Kadaria, who bears many scars for her calls for restraint and responsibility — for which she is considered too far to the journalistic right, removed herself from Twitter.

Her deactivation was unrelated, but the coincidence raised genuine suspicions that she might be avoiding fresh attacks. She was asking for trouble. I knew she would get more than a harvest.

Where does the media draw the line?

How far is too far? Some hold the view that this question is irrelevant — that the Nigerian media is sleeping on its watch, in bed with a government that has since lost its way. That’s a fair criticism, yet it does not diminish the importance of the question, how far is too far?

In the media’s quest to understand and highlight insurgency, a scourge that has claimed more than 35,000 lives since 2009, destroyed thousands of families and created in Nigeria’s northeast one of Africa’s largest pools of internally displaced persons, should the BBC be stoking the flames?  

In addition to claiming lives and ruining families and communities, the Boko Haram/ISWAP terror has made President Muhammadu Buhari, a two-star general and veteran of Nigeria’s civil war, look worse than a Boy Scout. His promises and pledges to curb the vile criminality have paled into statement after meaningless statement of sympathy. Seven years after he took office, Nigerians are still waiting for him to take responsibility.  

And in the week that the BBC promised to air its interview with the terrorists of Zamfara, Buhari’s presidency issued yet another statement that the president had done more than was expected of him by the army. As if that was not sufficient admission of impotence, he crowned it with a curious trip to Liberia to give a lecture on security hours after at least three members of his own elite guards were killed in an ambush in Bwari, 23km from the Presidential Villa in Abuja. 

But this is about the media, not about a commander-in-chief fighting terrorists with statements. How far, for the media, is too far? 

A senior minister in Buhari’s cabinet once expressed the view that reporting that the government was planning to deploy drones in the war against Boko Haram was a bridge too far. He was upset that LEADERSHIP published the story and said I, as editor-in-chief, should be sorry. I replied that his suggestion was ridiculous because the debate was held in the Senate’s plenary, in full public view.

But Kadaria’s objection to the BBC interview is a different thing. The dilemma of how far is too far is eloquently captured in Broken Truths, the new book by the Catholic Bishop of the Sokoto Diocese, Mathew Hassan Kukah.

Although the book is a collection of long convocation lectures by Kukah over decades, it offers extraordinary insights into the origins of violent insurgency in Nigeria, its spread and mutations and the role of various institutions, including the media. 

It’s difficult to read the book and still give the BBC a soft pass after its interview with the vile and reprehensible bandit warlords of Zamfara. That interview may have been a journalistic coup, but it was, on the whole, another rich supply of oxygen for twats who should be rotting in hell.

Thatcher and the IRA

It may be convenient to justify it as making a case for “understanding” the grievances of the terrorists (as if we didn’t know they’re mostly in it for the blood, the money and God-knows-what-else). But it might also be useful for the BBC to remind itself of how former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, dealt with a similar situation.  

“At the height of their wicked bombings of the United Kingdom”, Kukah wrote, “the late Mrs Margaret Thatcher managed to get Parliament to enact a law that criminalised allowing members of the IRA access to the British media. They could be quoted, but their voices could not be heard. She insisted that the IRA be denied what she called the oxygen of publicity.” 

What the BBC could not do in Thatcher’s time or even more recently in David Cameron’s Britain after the brutal murder of British soldier, Lee Rigby, is justified in Buhari’s Nigeria as necessary for “understanding” the anatomy of some idiots. I find that hard to swallow. 

Yet, the BBC is, in fact, a bit of a late-comer to this business of voyaging insurgency. Al-Jazeera was a much earlier courier. After the extra-judicial murder of the Boko Haram leader, Mohammed Yusuf, the international network generously distributed gory videos of the incident “which may have set the tone for the viciousness of the post-Yusuf Boko Haram” writes Kukah.

At the height of Qatar’s three-year conflict with Saudi Arabia, it would have been interesting to see how Doha would respond to a Nigerian Television Authority documentary on the alleged links of the Gulf state with some of the most violent extremist groups in the Middle East, including Al-Qaeda.

Nigeria’s political class has been largely irresponsible, having neither the aptitude to understand and tackle insurgency nor the honesty to admit its complicity. That is why the problem has grown from a few misguided itinerants proselytising for a theocratic state, to armed terror.

Politicians fuelled the fire

Through it all, politicians have fuelled the fire. They have used these itinerants as fodder. Sometimes, they send them bribes through emissaries. Yet at other times, they have posed with them for public photographs while the insurgents were decked in automatic rifles. And recently, they even made one of them a member of the state Emirate Council. It’s absurd.

Yet, the only thing absurdum ad infinitum is giving them is oxygen. It’s like throwing petrol on a fire to quench it.  

What does it matter, some may say? If the mainstream media does not do it, social media will. If social media had been available at the height of the IRA insurgency, the argument continues, Sinn Fein would not have needed access to the BBC. Members of the group would have simply ignored Thatcher and made their own blogs and videos. Perhaps. But regulation is slowly but surely curtailing the malicious negligence of big tech, too.

Even though the distinction is becoming increasingly blurred, and even meaningless, mainstream media is different from non-mainstream because society believes that perhaps the media could still save them from the sludge. For the victims of terrorists and their families, giving oxygen to terrorists is a painful nightmare.


What is oxygen? Oxygen is a bandit saying on camera that guns and bullets are the only acceptable language of protest; it is a bandit warlord telling his interviewer that he doesn’t kidnap, he only kills his victims; it is Abu Sani saying in the BBC interview that will be watched over and over again by hundreds of his victims, that when he kills, he “feels no guilt”. 

To be fair, unlike the widely shared video of the torture and lashing of victims of the Abuja-Kaduna train attack in which one of the terrorists gloated about his release from the Kuje Prison and promised more attacks, the BBC went the extra mile. It spoke with a few victims and included interviews with their families, too. 

But disciples of Abu Sani who watched him gloating in that BBC documentary about replenishing his arms supply with millions of naira received as ransom have also been re-energised. That was oxygen.

It’s fair to argue that a failing government, bereft in the face of the daily loss of lives and cries of despair, would be unable to lift a finger without pressure or scrutiny. But the line between scrutiny and sensitivity need not be drawn at the government’s comfort zone. It should, instead, be a matter of public safety and security and our collective mental health. 

That vital oxygen should be reserved for the victims and those on the frontlines. DM


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 1

  • Before the advent of modern mass communication, messages were usually delivered by envoys. Sometimes the messenger envoys were killed because the recipient didn’t like the message.
    Starving the IRA of the “oxygen of publicity” did not bring about the Peace Agreement which ended the Northern Irish Conflict. Messengers of high political status from the United States Congress were largely instrumental in that achievement, together with a reduction in the intransigence in the two sides in the conflict. The “insurgent IRA” was not denied the “oxygen of publicity”. Their political wing, Sinn Fein, was allowed full access to the Houses of Parliament in Westminster and Stormont to state their case.
    The trope that “The First Casualty of War is Truth” holds here. It is the responsibility of journalists to expose the truth even those truths which one finds indigestible.
    My message? Don’t shoot the messenger!

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted