Boko Haram: Covering unconventional warfare

Undoubtedly, the imbroglio between the Nigerian State and members of the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad, known in public parlance as Boko Haram, has given journalism practice a new definition-far from the usual news gathering, which media practitioners are familiar with. All over the world, wars are fought by two or more identifiable and […]

Undoubtedly, the imbroglio between the Nigerian State and members of the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad, known in public parlance as Boko Haram, has given journalism practice a new definition-far from the usual news gathering, which media practitioners are familiar with.

All over the world, wars are fought by two or more identifiable and verifiable forces, each with its designated territory and no matter the circumstances, journalists, being the watchdog of the society, cover such disagreements in the interest of the general public.

And even in places where guerrilla warfare is staged, one of the contending fighters normally leaves in the jungle, mountainous enclaves or the creeks, such as what obtains in the Niger Delta or Afghanistan.

In such instances, it is easier for the two warring parties to plan, strategize and launch offensive on the enemy with high precision. And for journalists, it is much easier to cover such wars.

The Maiduguri debacle, especially of recent, typified a guerrilla warfare being fought in the city centre between all the Nigerian security forces, including the army, navy, air force, SSS, police, customs and immigrations, and members of the Yusifiyya movement on the other.

While security agents have uniforms, guns, tankers and other armaments as well as operational base, the Boko Haram members have no identifiable headquarters, even though they also have their weapons, including explosives.

In between the two sides, the civilians in perpetual fear of the unknown and then the government which is frantically trying to find a way out of the impasse.

Inevitably in the middle also exist the journalists, who wittingly or unwittingly are the unofficial arbiters. With only the pen and the goodwill they might enjoy for being neutral the journalists remain very vulnerable without a gun, bullet proof jacket or any form of projection, yet they are expected to go to the scene of a bomb blasts or gun attacks, get the news and tell the world as it is promptly.

My experience in Maiduguri, both with members of the Yusifiyya movement and the security agents will remain indelible.

I still recall when the Boko Haram members resurfaced and launched targeted offensive in 2010, precisely one year after the killing of their leader, Mallam Mohammed Yusuf, they remained incommunicado for almost a year.

For a long time, no one, including journalists knew how or where to see them, not to talk of asking them to clarify or confirm if they are responsible for certain attacks.

Whenever somebody was killed, journalists relied on ‘eye’ witness accounts and confirmation by the police which was almost always very sketchy; a clear difference from obtained in places like the Niger Delta where the militants called and sometimes sent their own version of the story to journalists through the internet.

And when the Yusifiyya members opened up, journalists that are reporting for the international media, especially the radio, were those that had the advantage of getting both sides of stories.

My first encounter with them, albeit through a telephone chat, was in January 2011 shortly after the killing  of the then flag bearer of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) Alhaji Modu Fannami Gubio when they called, through a senior colleague and complained about a picture we used in one of the features I wrote for the Weekly Trust on how the death of Gubio changed the political equation in Borno.

Because of fear, occasioned by anxiety, I nearly died that day because I was asking whether the Yusifiyya members will accept my explanation on why we used the said photograph in the write-up.

“Hamza, move, move out of Maiduguri and go far, very far until  you get the assurance that all is well,” one of  my editors in Abuja told me in a text message.

Hurray! The Yusifiyya members understood and affirmed that they had no grudge against journalists, but emphasized that in our writings, we must not lie, distort facts and must not take sides.

“Why should we attack journalists?” Abu Dardam, a senior fellow of the movement rhetorically asked. “You are doing your job and we have no problem with all of you. However, you must not be partisan and henceforth we would always tell you our own side of anything that happened which we feel we should respond to,” he said.

Few months after, when Abu Zaid, the spokesman of the movement gave a surprise call to the chairman of the correspondents chapel, Abdulkareem Haruna, the chairman sent me a frightening text shortly after their conversation. “Hamza, Wallahi they have called. Please, what do you think I should do?” he asked.

I told him, ‘you cannot do anything, it is normal’, and few days after, Abu Zaid called the chairman again, who in turn called all the correspondents for a press conference through a telephone.

Since then, they always call or send an email whenever the need arises. But the development came with a bigger challenge, especially from the security agencies that felt and are still feeling that by mere receiving calls or writing about the Yusifiyya members, journalists are “accomplices” even  though  everybody knows that the ‘relationship remains strictly professional.’

There was a time when a senior military officer told me, though casually, that ‘Hamza, are you sure that you are not a member of the Boko Haram?’  He even went ahead and complained that it appears the Media Trust, which I write for in Maiduguri, has ‘vested interest in the Boko Haram affairs.’

I asked him why he thought so, but he simply complained that it was because we wrote too much about Boko Haram.

I vehemently objected to his assertion and told him that as a corporate organization, our interest was not Boko Haram, but the conflict in Maiduguri and every serious newspaper would not under-report issues that have to do with human lives and security.

I also told him that all over the world, conflict is of paramount news value in journalism and the press must not only report, but must be seen to be impartial and neutral for all contending parties to have a voice.

Though he nodded his head in partial agreement with what I said, mutual suspicion between us has continued unabated, till date.

But despite assurances from the Yusifiyya members and the security agencies on the safety of journalists in Maiduguri, the hazard in covering the crisis remains monumental.

I still have a text message from one of the members who frowned at how journalists are calling the sect members ‘Boko Haram’. “The name is Ahlis Sunnah, not Boko Haram I. All of you must take note of this!” he said.

But the fact is that the name is not the creation of the present crop of journalists in Maiduguri and that is why the  short phrase ‘always known as’ precedes the actual name.

Another unforgettable encounter was the one we had with the military operatives in Dala Alamderi in the outskirts of Maiduguri when about five of us wanted to visit a scene of a blast which reportedly led to the death of about 25 people at a tavern.

Few metres to the scene of the incident, we met some fierce looking, gun wielding soldiers who, despite presenting our identity cards at gunpoint, forced us out of the car, ransacked the vehicle and insisted that we must raise our hands up for thorough check.

“We don’t care whether you are journalists or whatever…after all, are you not the people that are writing nonsense about us? We must search you,” one of them retorted.

It was after we revolted that they allowed us to get to the scene of the blast, but unfortunately, all the dead bodies had been evacuated even though residents of the area told us that over fifty people died at the scene. However, up till the time of writing this report, the Joint Task Force (JTF) had refused to disclose the actual numbers of casualties.

And the need to get correct information has remained the greatest challenge of covering the crisis in Maiduguri. Whenever there is an attack, journalists are inundated with endless phone calls from residents who believe that the media are their last hope.

And whenever witnesses give their own accounts, the security operatives would have their own and therefore it is the journalist who is always left with the task of reading between the lines to get close to the truth.

The Kaleri incident, which attracted international attention, is still fresh in the memories of all who live or have acquaintances in Maiduguri. While the JTF said only 11 Boko Haram followers were killed during a raid of the area after a bomb blast, residents of the area said 31 people were killed and Borno Elders, on their own part, said investigation had proven that more than 40 people were killed.

But when journalists reported that at least 25 people were killed, the response from the power that be was that ‘journalists are extremely sensational, unpatriotic and a serious threat to national security.’

As the crisis continues to linger, challenges of reporting have continued to become more difficult everyday and therefore the need for a special training on “how to effectively cover unconventional warfare”.

This will equip journalists with the skills of writing that will meet the expectations of the vulnerable civilians that need constant media coverage so that authorities will rise up to their responsibilities.

Nigerian journalists equally require the technique of writing unconventional warfare stories so that their relationship with the likes of JTF will be viewed from the professional angle even as it has remained mandatory to learn how to write about unconventional battles so that opposing forces, like the Boko Haram members will not see ills in what the journalists say or write.