By Sam OMATSEYE
A well-known journalist and scholar, Gbemiga Ogunleye, who attended the recent Guild of Editors Conference in Enugu had this to say. “Dear colleagues, we are editors, for God’s sake, so I feel embarrassed when it appears some of us are star-struck! Why would editors yield their platform to Mr. Peter Obi and Professor Pat Utomi? If they came uninvited, there was no reason, in my view, to hand over the microphone to them. We risked making them the issue of the conference.”
This newspaper had pointed this same point out in an editorial. The Guild of Editors took offence in a rebuttal that chopped logic. It claimed The Nation’s editorial board got the facts wrong. Really? It claimed it “officially” invited political parties, leaders and chairmen. So, it implied that National Democratic Party (NDC) presidential candidate Peter Obi happened to be the only one who came, accompanied by Pat Utomi. If it invited all of them, all well and good. But we need to see the evidence. Did they write letters to the PDP, APC, NDC, APM, etc presidential candidates? This essayist has investigated and knows, for certain, that President Bola Tinubu of the APC was not invited as a candidate. He was as president and was represented by Vice President Kashim Shettima, who spoke not as candidate but office holder. We want the Guild to publish the letters to the candidate. You do not “officially” invite a personage to an august conference like a confab of editors by the claim of a phone call, text message and/or a ‘contact’ with a spokesperson. Formal is formal. What they asserted in their exuberant response remains a claim until they are able to tender that. As journalists, we thrive on facts. In journalism, we do not just trust but verify. We even verify before trust.
It is amazing that even attendees were not aware of such invitations. For a body that identifies as a touchstone of communication, that must be a bad job. Ogunleye posted the above lines on the NGE WhatsApp platform, and there was not even as much as a decency of a credible explanation. Did they send a letter to Atiku Abubakar or Bola Ahmed Tinubu?
Even granted, for the sake of argument, that they did, did an invitation translate to the privilege of a platform? Clearly, there was no programme on the schedule for Peter Obi or any other presidential candidate to speak? Saying that an executive session for public office holders or politicians existed was explaining it away, clutching at straws. When a big name like a presidential candidate is to speak, the attendees would be notified. If the candidates are coming, they would notify the organisers. If Obi did not give NGE a heads-up, it means he did not treat the Guild with respect. We do not reward such a contempt with the grandeur of platform to speak when he was not even scheduled to do so.
If such a critical item was on the agenda, the editors would know. As Ogunleye quipped, “we are all editors.” We know what makes headlines. So, when the editorial asserted that it was an ambush, there was no better way to characterise that impunity. To do that in a period of electoral campaigns makes the lapse more egregious and the editorial more potent. As Ogunleye asserted, all they needed to do was acknowledge. Not only did Obi speak, he fielded questions. It became an Obi session. But when he was asked questions, some of the questioners were shouted at. An NGE session became hostage to an Obidient outburst. The Leadership newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Azubuike Ishiekwene, had pointed out one of four Obi lies after fact checks. The same happened to Habib Aruna, another well-known editor and media manager. Habib wanted him to tackle the futility of a coalition against President Tinubu.
Obi lied that he was going to respond intellectually to Ishiekwene afterwards. Rather, he lashed at Ishiekwene in a text message and unleashed his media aide. Azu, as he is fondly called, had simply pointed out that Obi’s claim that Indonesia had the best medical care in the world was not correct. Those are some of habitual stumbles that this essayist calls Obi-isms.
The editorial did not accuse the Guild of the absence of news reporting on the incident. That was for the various news outlets. It should have kept its rebuttal to its own shortcomings. The editorial was written to cleanse, not to guillotine. But the Guild did not take its chiding like a man. Journalists are in the business of rule of law and holding others to account. When we err, we must be bold enough to show example by accepting errors. If not, why shall we be cleansed? We become pharisaic. That is not the way of the profession.
In Touch, The Nation newspaper, 12/10/2026
