Skip to main content

RE: Francis Ojo on Abati - Of False Flags and Strawmen

February 7, 2009
Dear Mr. Ojo,
I have just finished reading your recent article titled "Reuben Abati, Journalists and The Right To Wear Suit" which purports to be a rejoinder to "How Farida Waziri and Top Nigerian Editors Got Abuja Land Allocations" originally published on this site and, although I do not have the misfortune of personally knowing you, I hope you will permit me the opportunity to sincerely offer you a piece of advise (you know, as one human being to another) - please stick to your current calling and jettison your expressed aspiration to attend a "real" Journalism School. It is my considered opinion that there are enough journalmalists in the world today, and we can all do without another one, especially one with such wanton disregard for accuracy as yourself.

Mr. Ojo, your insipid and misleading "article" referenced above is an egregious insult to your intended readers, because not only do you presume that we are ill-informed enough to not be familiar with the substance of the matter you pretended to be addressing in your "article" (for lack of a better description), you also displayed an uncanny disregard for one of the salient tenets of journalism - facts. I am aware that you confessed that you are a journalist wanna-be, but even then, your disregard for facts is intolerable and unforgivable. From the beginning to the end, your "article" reeks of misdirection, innuendoes, false pretense, outright falsehood, irrelevance and other ingredients necessary for the construction of a classic straw man.

Lest I be guilty of ad hominem myself, let's proceed to analyze the contents of your mal-article. Let the reader be informed that, going by the title of the said article, you pretend to be partaking in the discussion of an expose broken here on Sahara Reporters.


Here is the very first line of your "contribution" to the debate:
Virtually everybody on the blog is upset or working themselves up to get upset that the applications for land allocation made by some journalists have been approved by the Honourable Minister. I do not know why

Right out of gate, your horse fell flat on its face, broke its entire limb and threw you for a loop. If you had stopped right there, one could have, maybe, forgiven you. But, no, you proceeded to ride the lame horse and, flogging it like a possessed maniac, went on to say:
What this means of course is that those “press boys” may begin to hob knob with retired Army generals, Inspectors Generals and Permanent Secretaries

Jesus Christ on a horse! The very first paragraph of your contribution to humanity on this topic was so inaccurate that even a blind referee couldn't have missed blowing off-side if it were a football match. Contrary to your perversion of the morals of the report, what "This" means is that journalists are expected to be the watchdog for the interest of their societies, keeping the people in government honest and true to their oaths, and where such is not the case, be in a position to accurately and immediately report on such deviations. What "This" means is that, in order to be able to do so, a journalist must be unencumbered by the appearance of impropriety or indebtedness to the very same government  officials they watch over. "This" is why journalists pay for their own coffee (for example) and don't hang in the back room after a conference waiting for brown envelopes or "dash". That is what "This" means, Mr. journalist-in-waiting.

In setting up the straw man, which you then proceeded to attempt to knock down throughout the rest of your tripe, you conveniently omitted the element of impropriety alleged in the article you pretended to be responding to. You conveniently had a brain fart at the relevant time and forgot to mention to your target audience that the report specifically called out the timing of the allocation approval, as well as the manner of the approval. The report did not in any way imply that any of the recipients is undeserving, or that they could not afford to own lands wherever they chose. The report did not inquire as to how they could afford the allocated land. I'm glad that you are not a journalist because you would have given all journalists a bad name for your inexplicable conflation of the subject of the original article with the objective of misdirection that appears to be the intended end-result of the straw man you have erected in your article. Why, you did not even bother to inform your readers that the big Tuna in the land-allocation-to-journalists scandal (Dr. Abati) had had numerous opportunities to respond to (and clearly debunk) the allegation - a task that would have been quite simple for him to do since he has the machinery of an established TradMed (The Guardian) at his disposal. You failed to mention that, given his esteemed position and the reverence with which he is held within and outside Nigeria, all it would have taken for Dr. Abati to put the "controversy" surrounding his allocation to rest was to say "This story isn't true, this is how it all went". You failed to mention that most people would believe Dr. Abati's words and credibility over whatever is contained in a Sahara Reporters' report. Did you ever wonder about the long non-response from the person you appear to be defending? No. Did you wonder whether or not your ward's decision to not address the "controversy" is borne out of sheer arrogance (perhaps a desire to not entertain such lowly reporters and operators who operate on the intertoobz and seek to bring down "untouchable" masters of the universe such as himself) or it is borne out of the consideration and fear of the unknown - him being unsure of the information and relevant documents that may (or may not) be in the possession of Sahara Reporters, which may then be used to reveal further damaging information? Of course not. But then, you are not a journalist. you've said so yourself. Of course, you don't need to be a journalist to be informed, objective and judicious.

Rather than address the substance of the "debate", what we have from you is more inane idiocies like these:


I expected journalists to rise up as one and defend themselves by defending Reuben Abati. But I can sympathise with them, their wrong reading of what this is all about, their petty jealousies, even their poor perception of self.  Do you not wonder why nobody is angry when a civil servant on level 07 dresses to kill in three piece pure wool suit with bow tie to match and rides a Toyota Avalon 2008 model to the office? But when a journalist rides a Tokunbo 1978 around town, the eruption is loud.

Again, I am VERY glad that you are not a journalist, and that real journalists would find your "expectation" rather obnoxious, if not downright laughable. About your going to journalism school, permit me to mention to you that no amount of schooling can transform a pig into a race horse. I am not calling you a pig, but please feel free to draw whatever conclusion you deem fit - it is the least I could after plodding painfully through your muddy and lame attempt to distract your readers by masquerading as an objective commentator on a topic on which you are either ill-equipped to comment, or too impaired to objectively evaluate and understand.

This propensity to ascribe jealousy, hatred, ill-wills and the likes to everyone who questions authority is a cancerous affliction that has bedeviled our society for so long. No-one, in the report you pretend to be responding to, and in all subsequent discussions I have seen to-date, has expressed animosity towards Dr. Abati's wealth, health or person. All everyone has been asking is simply this: How could a person of Dr. Abati's caliber and stature not understand the appearance of impropriety associated with receiving such personal largesse and favour from government officials? Ascribing nefarious motives to such questions is an admission of your inability to comprehend the roles of journalism and citizenry in the betterment of their societies. It is the responsibility of every citizen to question authorities, and it is the responsibility of every occupier of the Fourth Estate to do everything humanly possible to avoid the appearance of  having been compromised and co-opted by the very people they are expected to keep honest. I know that all this may sound highfalutin to an aspiring journalmalist like yourself who sees "enemies" under every stationary object and lash out at every criticism with the viciousness of a lanced bull.

Mr. Ojo, while you are honing you jujitsu in readiness for such time and place when you will be sufficiently equipped to practise all the "attacks" you have dreamt up in your "article", I think society will be well-served if you refrain from further polluting the landscape with such insidious tripe as you have written here. Take a break, look inward and ask yourself how much damage you are doing to the collective efforts to better our country by holding people accountable for their actions and inactions. We will all benefit from such self-imposed ruminations.

Good day, Sir.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });