by Niyi Akinnaso

There is a lesson, too, for online commentators. Headlines do not necessarily make the whole story. It is always more rewarding to read through a story…

It is most unfortunate that the name of the Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, and that of Kelvin Ighodalo, a serial convict and chronic fraudster, would be mentioned in the same sentence. The connection between the two was a mobile phone. The one that Aregbesola lost was traced to Ighodalo, who had put it to criminal use. Three factors initially drew attention to the story: The status of the property owner as a state governor; the fact that the property in question was only a mobile phone; and the sensational headlines, highlighting the governor’s name, the phone, and the thief’s 45-year prison sentence.

Even before getting the facts of the case and the breakdown of the 45-year sentence, many had condemned the Osogbo High Court judge, Justice Oyejide Falola, for passing such a harsh sentence on a mere phone thief. Did the judge pass such a heavy sentence on Ighodalo because he stole a governor’s phone? Would there be space in Nigerian prisons if every phone thief were sent to prison? Others had blamed Aregbesola for allowing his security to be so lax as to allow for the theft of his phone. What if the phone contained sensitive personal and state data? There were detractors who even thought it served him right. Some commentators saw a villain in the governor and a hero in the thief, whose action was erroneously blamed on poverty and unemployment.

Although many of these reactions turned out to be presumptuous and wide of the mark, they speak to certain features of the Nigerian society that should not be ignored. But before those features are discussed, let us get the facts straight about the stolen phone, which emerged days after the story broke. According to various sources, Ighodalo was a police officer, who was dismissed from service for various criminal offences. He had been in an out of prison for various crimes, including receiving stolen goods and murder charges.

He was actually an inmate in Kirikiri Maximum Prison on November 27, 2010, when Aregbesola’s phone was stolen. But he kept working with a syndicate from his prison room, consisting of himself, Ogunjobi Babatunde (a prison officer), Abdulgafar Yusuf (the prison officer’s brother) and foot soldiers, ranging from pickpockets to armed robbers.

According to the Osun State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Adewale Afolabi, “Members of the syndicate, who are still under investigation, arranged the stealing of the mobile phone of Rauf Aregbesola and before the SIM card was blocked, the syndicate impersonated the owner. They defrauded many close associates of Aregbesola”. Mike Adeyinka highlighted the extent of the fraud: “At the last count, he had fraudulently collected more than N20m from different people” (The Guardian, May 9, 2013).

Ighodalo was eventually caught and slammed with six counts for using a stolen phone to commit multiple frauds and for the various frauds he committed. He was granted bail but re-arrested while attempting to defraud someone else with another stolen phone! He eventually got 10 years for each of three counts and five years for each of the remaining three, totalling 45 years. However, he would serve only 10 years in prison since the sentences would run concurrently.

Against the above background, it is fair to conclude that the headline “Man jailed 45 years for stealing Governor Aregbesola’s phone” was sensational. Although the headline is factually correct, it is misleading, not just because the convict would only serve 10 years in prison but also because the story is more complicated than a mere phone theft. At stake were Ighodalo’s key role in a syndicate of thieves and the offences he committed and attempted to commit with a stolen phone, including impersonation and collecting money under false pretences.

One thing this story did for many readers, especially before the details were filled in, was to provide an opportunity for them to vent their anger at a system considered to be corrupt, unjust, and unfair. Who would not be angry at the political class and their allies (godfathers, contractors, consultants, and so on), which cart away our petrodollars with impunity, while over 70 per cent of the population live in poverty and over 30 per cent are unemployed? Tell me, who can relax at a church, mosque, or party these days without wondering about a Boko Haram strike or the mischievous exploits of Area Boys? Who can drive on Nigerian roads and not fear for his life, because of bad roads and possible armed robbery or kidnapping? Who will not hiss at whoever when sudden power outage prevents the enjoyment of a live TV broadcast of a football match, especially when one’s adopted team is playing?

There is also ample evidence from the courts’ handling of electoral offences and corruption to make people uncomfortable with the distribution of justice in the country. That’s why many readers initially expressed outrage at Ighodalo’s long prison sentence. They could not square the perceived heavy punishment of a phone thief with the light or no punishment for looters of federal, state, and local government treasuries. “Why”, they ask, “would a phone thief have to spend so many years in prison when a former governor got a perpetual injunction against probing into his loot, even when it was clear that he had taken too much for the owners to see?” Since Aregbesola was viewed as part of the system, such a stiff sentence for his phone thief was viewed as double oppression. He should have intervened, some ignorantly suggested.

On the basis of available details about this case, it is now evident that the invectives directed at the governor and the judge were misguided. On the one hand, there is no evidence that the governor interfered with the justice system. Besides, he waited patiently for over two years to get justice for his stolen phone. On the other hand, the judge kept to the letter of the law, and he was lenient by not imposing the maximum penalty of 20 years for the more serious crimes. The fact that certain judges miscarried justice in some election and corruption cases does not mean that all judges would behave the same way.

There is, however, an important lesson on media management to be learnt from the case. Immediately after the judgment, the Attorney General of the Federation should have called a press conference involving the prosecutor, police investigators, and members of the press. Such a conference, watched on the CNN every now and then, would have afforded a golden opportunity to provide a brief overview of the case, to set the records straight about the sentence, and to allow for questions from members of the press. This would have prevented unnecessary damage control later.

There is a lesson, too, for online commentators. Headlines do not necessarily make the whole story. It is always more rewarding to read through a story, possibly from multiple sources, and wait for details to be filled in before rushing to the keyboard. No useful purpose is served by impulsive reactions.

Reporters also have a duty not to incite the people or aggravate their misgivings by inventing sensational headlines, without providing necessary clarifications in the body of their report. The struggle for a competitive edge in reporting a story should not overshadow the need for accuracy and fairness, even in headlines.

————————-

Read this article in the Punch Newspapers

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.