Ahmad
Salkida is in the eye of the storm again over the propagation of two
threat videos released by Boko Haram operatives as a psychological
warfare employed in terrorism.
Ahmad Salkida
Last Friday, the journalist, who is known to have access to information from Boko Haram, shared two videos – one, in which some commanders of the insurgents
threatened to bomb the Federal Capital territory (FCT) – and two, in
which some of girls presumed to be from Chibok vowed not to return home.
The release of these videos has had a jarring impact, most
especially on the security forces which see information of this nature
as undermining their war on terror and insurgency.
Hours after the videos were released, the army issued a statement
telling Nigerians to disregard them because the insurgents were merely
seeking “relevance and attention”.
No doubt, the weapon of the insurgents is propaganda, but should
information concerning the security of citizens be dismissed or
concealed?
On Monday, an unknown Incorporated Trustees of Overt Legacy and
Human Development Initiative filed a suit at the federal high court in
Abuja to compel the inspector-general of police (IGP) and the
director-general of Department of State Services (DSS) to arrest and
prosecute Salkida for being a Boko Haram adjutant.
The group hinges his suit on sections 1, 4 and 5 of the Terrorism
Prevention Amendment Act, 2013. According to the organisation, Salkida
is a woofer of the sect’s propaganda material. Many think the group is
working for the security agencies.
But section 1A (f) of the anti-terrorism Act compels law enforcement agencies to “partner
with civil society organisations and the Nigerian public to provide
necessary education, support, information, awareness and sensitisation
towards the prevention and elimination of acts of terrorism”.
What this implies is that private citizens and security agencies
are equal partners in the fight against terrorism. So, concealing
information of planned attacks or terrorist operations is against the
law.
Salkida did the obverse. He released a video, which in a way,
forewarns citizens in Abuja of an impending Boko Haram attack. The
primary intent may not be malicious or even to cause panic.
In fact, section (8) 1a of the anti-terrorism Act, spells it all out that it is a crime to conceal information “preventing the commission by any person or an organisation of an act of terrorism”.
So, should Salkida be arrested for sharing Boko Haram video?
Well, this will not be the journalist’s first bath in the boiling
cauldron. In August, he was declared wanted by the army for having
“links” with Boko Haram.
Although, he was in the UAE at the time, he returned to the country
in September. On his return he was detained by the DSS which later
released him after an interrogation.
Now, the drumbeats for his arrest are woofing, and there is a
possible threat to his life. But should Salkida be arrested? He has
stoutly defended himself, and insists that his relationship with Boko
Haram is purely professional as a journlist.
Salkida said: “The faceless group claims I live in Sambisa? Do I
live in Sambisa? The NGO has no credibility. They were set up to
ridicule me… Let’s not give a faceless group’s credibility to undermine a
law abiding citizen and journalist.
“The second thing is, am I a journalist? Am I doing anything
wrong? Am I glorying BH? Whether or not I publish the video it is going
to be on YouTube. The only difference is I am the only reporter that
gets it first. Is it wrong journalistically speaking?
“I have never glorified Boko Haram. I called them terrorists. I
challenge any media organization to point to one tweet one article
where I glorified Boko Haram.
“I will always remain true to the ethos of journalism. If I
have ever done anything wrong, security agents will not need to use any
proxy group to get a court order they would have gone ahead to arrest
me. In fact, it is an indictment on the part of security to wait for a
court order before they do their jobs.”
Read more tweets below:
No comments:
Post a Comment