*Photo: The late Brigadier General M. Uba*
By Taiwo Hassan Adebayo
Reporting on terrorism or conflict generally is delicate. It requires a careful navigation of the tension between the public’s right to know and the journalist’s duty to avoid causing further harm. The case involving Brigadier General M. Uba, who was captured and executed by ISWAP, illustrates this tension. In hindsight, though often an unfair judge, could different an editorial decision, by Humangle, have changed the outcome?
While the full circumstances remain contested, the officer had certainly managed to remove himself from the chaos of ISWAP’s ambush and contacted his colleagues. But reports emerged that he was missing or had been abducted by the terrorists. Then came another report that said he had been rescued and had led his men back to the camp, an apparent propaganda effort to counter the embarrassment of a senior officer being abducted by ISWAP.
Unfortunately, the insurgents, particularly ISWAP, known for its intelligence-gathering discipline and adaptability, monitor media closely, even more so than the public and officials imagine. We are being told now that it was these media reports that alerted them to the situation of Gen. Uba, who was hiding in the bush waiting to be picked up by the air fighters. ISWAP then deployed a unit under their Timbuktu Wilayat to search for him and they recaptured him near a Damboa village on Saturday. They searched his phone to confirm “this one is an important man.”
Again, it’s a sobering reminder that conflict reporting is delicate. It’s not just about speed and truth, which is sacrosanct, but also about consequence.
The question is not whether the media should report a senior officer missing in action, which is newsworthy. The deeper and ethical question is whether publication should wait until the safety and status of the officer are confirmed with reasonable certainty.
In the age of digital media, the speed instinct is an asset that newsrooms prize. BUT, when the lives of hostages, soldiers, or civilians hang in the balance, it’s a different thing, and that’s where an editor’s judgement is critical.
If the officer was moving toward safety, could delayed publication have bought crucial hours? Possibly. But one cannot assert this with certainty, and journalists are not expected to predict insurgent behavior. (And in the particular case of Gen. Uba, the journalists did not have all the information. They possibly only knew that he was missing or had been abducted.) However, in future cases, what they are expected to do is to weigh potential harm against the imperative to publish immediately.
An editor could ask the reporter questions like:
Has the officer’s status been conclusively confirmed?
Does publishing now pose any potential harm?
Are we certain this information is not tactical or incomplete?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then delay may be the more ethical choice. This doesn’t undermine press freedom, nor hinder the media’s role in upholding accountability. It strengthens the social responsibility role of journalism.
The Gen. Uba case should spark a deeper conversation within Nigerian journalism and the broader African conflict-reporting space.
There is a need for clearer editorial guidelines on terrorism coverage, stronger awareness of how these armed groups exploit open-source information, and safety. Importantly, the military and security authorities should consider the media as a critical element in the war against Boko Haram and other armed groups, and open a channel of engagement with newsroom leaders on sensitive matters.
Meanwhile, that Gen. Uba was in the bush for several hours in search of safety before ISWAP eventually recaptured him shows ISWAP’s territorial dominance. That’s troubling, and the media must continue to tell this story, but with a sense of care that ensures the pursuit of truth does not unwittingly cost further harm.”