31 Mar 23 | News and features, Nigeria
On 25 February, Punch Newspaper journalist Gbenga Oloniniran stood near the Governor of Rivers State’s residence in Southern Nigeria, covering the recent presidential election. As policemen gathered and arrested young people at a polling station, Oloniniran brought out his camera, taking snapshots of the incident. Instantly, the policemen left the youths, pounced on Oloniniran, snatched his camera, and bundled him away in a van. They denied him the right to cover the elections.
This was not an isolated incident. At least 14 journalists and media workers covering the presidential election were detained, intimidated or attacked by security forces, political groups or citizens. During the state elections held on 18 and 19 March, at least 28 more journalists suffered the same treatment, with many more cases likely going unreported.
“They threatened me, and that was under the rain, and I was shivering,” Bolanle Olabimtan, a journalist at The Cable, told Index after she was attacked in Delta State. She was punched, and had the photos deleted from her phone.
Haruna Mohammed Salisu, CEO of WikkiTimes, was arrested while covering a protest during the presidential elections. He was detained and charged with inciting disturbance of public peace. He claims he had his phone taken, was interrogated by security personnel and was then assaulted by violent supporters of the governor.
“My experience in detention serves as a stark reminder of how vulnerable journalists are in Nigeria,” he wrote in WikkiTimes.
On March 18 unidentified men attacked an Arise TV crew consisting of reporter Oba Adeoye, cameraman Opeyemi Adenihun and driver Yusuf Hassan. Adenihun suffered facial injuries and their drone was seized. Meanwhile in Ogun State, Adejoke Adeleye, a News Agency of Nigeria reporter, was attacked by a mob when filming at a voting station. Five people, including one masked person wielding an axe, chased the group of journalists that included Adeleye, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In Lagos, 10 people hit reporter Amarachi Amushie and camera operator Aliu Adeshina from the privately-owned broadcaster Africa Independent Television, as they reported at a polling station. Security agencies issued threats. They harassed Adesola Ikulajolu, a freelance investigative reporter, deleting the image folder in his phone.
Nigeria is ranked at 129 out of 180 nations in the 2022 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, with this latest assault on press freedom demonstrating part of the reason for the ranking.
After the attacks, Dupe Fehintola, Chairman of a branch of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, made a statement saying: “We condemn these attacks on journalists.”
During the elections, members of the Nigerian media investigated potential links between political parties and violent attackers, who threatened voters unless they proved they were casting their ballots in favour of the ruling All Progressives Party.
Adebola Ajayi, a journalist at People’s Gazette, experienced that violence first hand, saying: “I was attacked by political thugs at a polling unit in Orile-Oshodi ward in Lagos.”
This violence may have contributed to the fact that 71% of voters abstained from the elections. The election winner, APC’s Ahmed Tinubu, received only 8.8 million votes, while challengers Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party gathered 6.9 million and Peter Obi of the Labour Party received 6.1 million, in a country of 93 million registered voters and a population of over 200 million.
Evidence gathered by the media – including assaults on electoral officials and an incident where attackers destroyed ballot boxes with axes – showed that violence marked the elections. The pressure on journalists as they faced this violence themselves prevented them from covering the elections fairly.
Nearly two weeks after the end of the state and presidential elections, the media remains shaken.
“We strongly condemn these unacceptable attacks, which constitutes both the violation of fundamental human rights of the affected journalists and media worker and a major assault on press freedom,” Melody Akinjiyan, the spokesman of the International Press Center, Lagos, told Index.
17 Mar 23 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
BBC Broadcasting House. Photo: James Cridland
There are some new stories that expose people’s lack of understanding of what media freedom is in a democratic society and in the midst of an apparent scandal words can get heated and people can speak out of turn without realising that they are ignorant of what they speak. We’ve all done it but in the last ten days the words of more than one British politician or commentator have made me want to throw things at the TV.
Since last week the United Kingdom has been embroiled in a row about whether or not a sports presenter – namely one Gary Lineker – had the right to challenge the actions of his government on a social media platform when not at work. The issue was actually not his words (not really), but the responsibility he had to his employer – the UK’s public sector broadcaster, the BBC.
When last Friday evening BBC management opted to remove Lineker from air over the weekend, I think it’s fair to suggest that they were ill prepared for the response from the rest of their on-air talent and many of their sports journalists and support staff who, in solidarity with Lineker, refused to work. Shows were cancelled, football commentary was unavailable and many of the most influential footballers in the UK refused to give post-match interviews to the BBC. In other words Lineker received complete support from his colleagues and the BBC reinstated him.
While this was a freedom of expression issue – once Lineker had been removed from air for sharing his views – it isn’t that element of the issue that is the focus of my blog. Although, for the record, I think that employees of the BBC who aren’t involved in news production or editorial decisions should probably be able to outline their personal views, on their personal social media pages, when not at work without it becoming a national drama.
However, it was the political pontifications that followed the internal BBC drama that I wish to write about. British parliament had a discussion on the impartiality of the BBC following on from the drama. Language is important and definitions even more so when you’re talking about issues of such importance. And both in the House of Commons and in certain media outlets the BBC suddenly was no longer a public sector broadcaster – it had become a state broadcaster.
These are two very different beasts and it’s vital that we don’t seek to conflate the two. A state broadcaster operates at the direction of the state – they promote the interests of their government and are not considered by anyone to be impartial. State broadcasters include Iran’s Press TV, Russia’s RT and China’s CGTV. This is not a model that the UK would want to or should ever seek to emulate.
The BBC is an impartial public sector broadcaster, funded by a form of hypothecated tax. The government gets to appoint the governance structure and every decade negotiate the Royal Charter – which determines the broadcasting rights of the BBC – but they have no editorial control. No programming control. No employment responsibilities. And long may that be.
We are incredibly lucky to have an impartial public sector broadcaster that can speak truth to power and they should be able to act without fear or favour within the UK. Politicians and commentators who wish to engage in discussions about the future of the BBC and any perceived impropriety or political bias should as a basic requirement be able to articulate the difference between a public sector broadcaster and a state broadcaster.
10 Mar 23 | Ruth's blog
Wednesday marked International Women’s Day, an opportunity to reflect upon the role of women in society. In the midst of a war in Europe and global economic crisis it is easy to focus on the immediate, on the current existential crisis, but there is an onus on us to remember what is happening further afield.
On Wednesday for International Women’s Day I addressed students on behalf of the Anne Frank Trust. I highlighted the importance of not only telling women’s stories but also the power of amplifying their lived experiences, wherever they may be. Collectively we all made a promise that this week – and I hope in future weeks – we would seek to tell the stories of the women who have made a mark and ensure that the world knows their names.
I seek to deliver on that promise.
I am proud to be the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, a charity which endeavours to provide a voice to the persecuted, which campaigns for freedom of expression around the world. I work daily with dissidents who risk everything to change their societies and their communities for the better. Men and women. But today I would like to highlight the names of some of those women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the last year for the supposed “crime” of doing something we take for granted every day – using the human right of freedom of expression.
-
Deborah Samuel – a student brutally murdered in Nigeria after being accused of blasphemy on an academic social media platform.
-
Nokuthula Mabaso – a leading woman human rights defender in South Africa and leader of the eKhenana Commune. She was assassinated outside of her home, in front of her children.
-
Shireen Abu Akleh – a veteran Palestinian-American correspondent for Al Jazeera who was killed while reporting on an Israeli raid in the West Bank.
-
Jhannah Villegas – a local journalist in the Philippines was killed at her home. The police believe this was linked to her work.
-
Francisca Sandoval – a local Chilean journalist was murdered, and several others hurt when gunmen opened fire on a Workers’ Day demonstration.
-
Mahsa Amini – a name all too familiar to us, as her murder inspired a peaceful revolution which continues to this day. Murdered by the Iranian morality police for “inappropriate attire”.
-
Oksana Baulina – a Russian journalist killed during shelling by Russian forces in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv.
-
Oksana Haidar – a 54-year-old Ukrainian journalist and blogger better known under the pseudonym “Ruda Pani”, killed by Russian artillery, northeast of Kyiv.
-
Oleksandra Kuvshynova – a Ukrainian producer who was killed outside of Kyiv, while working with Fox News.
-
Petronella Baloyi – a South African land and women human rights defender gunned down while in her home.
-
Yessenia Mollinedo Falconi, a Mexican journalist who was the founder and editor of El Veraz. A crime and security correspondent, she received a death threat a fortnight before she was shot. She was killed alongside her colleague Sheila Johana García Olivera
-
Vira Hyrych – a journalist for Radio Free Europe’s Ukrainian service, killed by Russian shelling.
-
Yeimi Chocué Camayo – an Indigenous women’s rights activist, killed in Columbia when returning to her house.
-
Cielo Rujeles – wife of social leader Sócrates Sevillano, shot and killed alongside her husband in Colombia.
-
Luz Angelina Quijano Poveda – a delegate of the Community Action Board in Punta Betín, Colombia, murdered at her home.
-
Sandra Patricia Montenegro – a PE teacher and social leader was shot and killed in front of her students in Colombia.
-
Melissa Núñez – a transgender activist shot dead by armed men in Honduras.
-
María del Carmen Vázquez – a Mexican activist and member of the Missing Persons of Pénjamo, murdered by two men at her home in. She was looking for her son who disappeared last summer.
-
Blanca Esmeralda Gallardo – activist and member of the Collective Voice of the Missing in Puebla, who was assassinated on the side of the highway in Mexico as she waited for a bus to take her to work. She was searching for her 22-year-old daughter who vanished in 2021.
-
Yermy Chocue Camayo – treasurer of the Chimborazo indigenous reservation in Colombia, and human rights defender, killed as she headed home.
-
Dilia Contreras – an experienced presenter for RCN Radio in Columbia, shot dead in a car alongside her colleague Leiner Montero after covering a festival in a local village.
-
Edilsan Andrade – a Colombian social leader and local politician, shot and killed in the presence of one of her children.
-
Jesusita Moreno, aka Doña Tuta – a human rights activist who defended Afro-Colombian community rights. Facing threats against her life, she was assassinated whilst at her son’s birthday party.
-
Maria Piedad Aguirre – a Colombian social leader who was a defender of black communities, violently murdered with a machete; she was found at home by one of her grandchildren.
-
Elizabeth Mendoza – social leader, was shot and killed in her home in Colombia. Her husband, son and nephew were also murdered.
-
María José Arciniegas Salinas – a Colombian indigenous human rights defender, assassinated by armed men who said they belonged to the Comandos de la Frontera group.
-
Shaina Vanessa Pretel Gómez – who was known among the LGBTIQ+ community for her activism, including work to establish safe spaces for homeless people and a passion for the arts, was shot dead early in the morning by a suspect on a motorbike.
-
Rosa Elena Celix Guañarita – a Colombian human rights defender was shot while socialising with friends.
-
Mariela Reyes Montenegro – a leader of the Union of Workers and Employees of Public Services was murdered in Colombia.
-
Alba Bermeo Puin – an indigenous leader and environmental defender in Ecuador was murdered when five months pregnant.
-
Mursal Nabizada – a former female member of Afghanistan’s parliament and women’s rights campaigner murdered at her home.
This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination. Compiling the names and profiles of women who have been killed as a result of their right to exercise freedom of expression is almost impossible, not least because of the nature of the repressive regimes which too many people live under. But every name represents thousands of others who day in, day out put their lives at risk to speak truth to power. They were mothers, grandmothers, daughters, nieces, granddaughters, sisters, aunts, friends, partners, wives.
To their families, they were the centre of the world. To us, today, their stories bring fear and inspiration in equal measure. They are heroes whose bravery we should all seek to emulate.
04 Mar 23 | News and features, Statements
The Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP, Home Secretary
The Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
United Kingdom (Sent via Email)
Dear Home Secretary,
As a group of leading press freedom, journalist support and free expression organisations, we want to highlight the dire circumstances faced by Afghan journalists, media workers and writers. As the situation in-country deteriorates, journalists, especially women and those from marginalised backgrounds such as ethnic Hazaras, find themselves at heightened risk of retaliation. As a result, it is vital that the UK Government honours its pledges to those at-risk through the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
We have received a number of requests of support from Afghan journalists based either in-country or other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran. Many of them are at heightened risk from the Taliban due to their profession and so are reaching out for urgent support and relocation. However, without clarification on progress for ACRS, there is little if any support that can be provided and this leaves the journalists vulnerable to threats of disappearance, violence, arrest, imprisonment and assassination. The experiences of the eight Afghan journalists, who have worked for the BBC and other agencies who have recently had their visa applications reopened after a legal action against the UK Government demonstrates the urgency needed to protect journalists who remain in Afghanistan.
The Government has stated that Pathway Three of the ACRS would reopen a year after the scheme’s commencement to enable the Government to “work with international partners and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) to welcome wider groups of Afghans at risk.” Of the groups prioritised in the scheme, the Government has highlighted those who have “stood up for values such as democracy … freedom of speech, and rule of law”, which surely captures Afghan journalists who have risked their lives reporting in the public interest. However, the year mark has passed, with Pathway Three still closed for applications with no information forthcoming as to when it will reopen. This lack of clarity breeds uncertainty for those at risk and must be urgently addressed by the Home Office and other relevant departments.
This lack of clarity also extends to those who are based in other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran. The Afghanistan Journalists’ Support Organization reported on 3 February that a number of Afghan journalists had been arrested in Islamabad. According to the report, phones, laptops, cameras, and other electronic and personal devices of journalists have been seized and inspected. Those arrested have passports and visas and are legally residing in Pakistan. They were later released but one Afghan journalist said that the behaviour of the Pakistani police towards those fleeing the Taliban was “insulting and wrong”. This follows earlier reports that Pakistani authorities have deported 600 Afghans, including women and children from Pakistan.
As well as arrest, journalists fleeing Afghanistan to Pakistan face other problems. One female journalist, who is currently in Pakistan after being forced to leave Afghanistan for fear of retribution by the Taliban, has shared her shocking story with Index on Censorship.
To this end, the undersigned organisations would like to request information on:
● Specific details about Pathway 3 of the ACRS including –
- When will it reopen;
- How long it will remain open for;
- How many spaces will be available for at-risk Afghans;
- The eligibility criteria for inclusion, including the current location of the individual in need;
- Any support for direct and extended family members;
- How partners and NGOs can support the process to identify, vet and refer potential applicants;
● Any specific considerations the UK Government has made to respond to the needs and threats facing at-risk Afghan journalists;
● Whether, through the FCDO, the UK Government has engaged with Pakistani authorities to ensure all Afghan journalists are protected from threats of deportation or other acts that could endanger their safety.
As a group of organisations who have a track record supporting and protecting journalists, writers, media workers and outlets at risk across the globe, we stand ready to support where we can, whether through coordination with key partners or verifying and sourcing requests for support. However this cannot be done without meaningful commitments and leadership from the UK Government through the ACRS.
We would welcome any information about Pathway Three of the ACRS to ensure we can offer meaningful support to at-risk Afghan journalists. We would also welcome the opportunity to meet you or one of your team to brief you directly.
We await your response.
Kind regards,
Martin Bright, Editor at Large, Index on Censorship
Michelle Stanistreet, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists
Ross Holder, Head of Asia/Pacific Region, PEN International
Dalia Nasreddin, UK Campaigns Manager, English PEN
Copied to:
The Rt Hon James Cleverly MP, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Minister of State (Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and United Nations)
Sir John Whittingdale MP, Chair of the Press Freedom APPG
Mark Logan MP, Chair of the Afghanistan APPG
