Not a demand that journalists stop writing, but that they stop reporting what they can plainly see.
The Federal Government has once again urged journalists and social media influencers to “deny bandits and terrorists the publicity they crave.”
The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, made the call at the maiden edition of the Arewa Media Summit on Monday in Kano. According to him, the media has an indispensable role in denying violent extremists the publicity they seek while promoting unity, resilience, and hope.
He also disclosed that over 100 APC social media communicators were trained ahead of the summit on the effective communication of government policies and achievements. The presidential aide unveiled the Gani Ya Kori initiative, a regional project inspection tour aimed at showcasing landmark projects executed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Northern governors that, according to the government, have received little public attention.
This appeal is not the first of its kind. Last month, the Minister similarly urged media executives not to give terrorists, bandits, and other criminal syndicates undue prominence or front-page coverage.
“The personnel of the Armed Forces of Nigeria are doing so much and sacrificing their lives, losing part of their physical body so that you and I can enjoy peace in our communities and homes,” he said. “It is, however, not encouraging to me when I see the Nigerian media prioritising the news of terrorists and other criminal elements over and above what our men and women in uniform are doing.”
This is more than an Information Minister misunderstanding the role of the press in a democracy; it is another example of the Tinubu administration attempting to redefine what the media exists to do.
Often described as the fourth pillar of democracy, the press exists to inform citizens, hold those in power accountable, and provide an objective record of reality. Governments are not entitled to favourable coverage; they earn it. The media’s responsibility is not to manufacture optimism or amplify government messaging. It is to report the truth, whether flattering or inconvenient.
But with Mohammed Idris’ remarks, this administration once again signals that it would prefer the press to prioritise its achievements over the full picture.
Ironically, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has repeatedly presented himself as a defender of press freedom. On November 12, he stood before editors and media practitioners, touting his administration’s positive relationship with the media. He insisted he welcomed criticism and encouraged journalists to be bold but fair.
“Report boldly, but do so truthfully,” he said. “Critique government policy, but do so with knowledge and fairness.”
A subtle threat.
Rather than openly attacking the press, this administration has adopted a quieter, more bureaucratic approach to suppressing it. Harassment and intimidation increasingly operate under the guise of legality, aided by legislation such as the infamous Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. Press freedom is not being eroded with gunshots or newspaper bans reminiscent of military rule. It is being worn down through administrative mechanisms that make journalism increasingly costly and risky. It is suppression by paperwork rather than by force.
In 2025, the Minister of Information declared that, with over 1,000 licensed radio and television stations operating across Nigeria, “not a single one has been threatened, gagged, or shut down by the government for expressing dissent.“
Yet the everyday realities of Nigerian journalism since Tinubu assumed office in May 2023 reveal a widening gulf between official rhetoric and lived experience. The obvious question then becomes: what exactly is the government asking journalists to amplify?
On the third anniversary of his administration, President Tinubu released a lengthy statement cataloguing what he described as his government’s achievements. According to the statement, the administration has strengthened the economy through improved public finances, increased investor confidence, stock market growth, and higher allocations to states and local governments. It claims to have advanced major road projects, expanded agricultural support, improved transportation, widened access to student loans, affordable housing, consumer credit, healthcare, and youth development, while significantly improving security through better intelligence, technology, and investment in the armed forces.
Governments should publicise their achievements. That is expected. The problem arises when official messaging begins to diverge so sharply from observable reality that the media is encouraged to privilege government narratives over glaring evidence.
For an administration deeply invested in positive public perception, this creates an obvious dilemma. If public experience does not naturally align with government messaging, then controlling the narrative becomes almost as important as governing itself.
It is difficult to ignore how frequently government officials invoke phrases like “social media influencers,” “misinformation,” and “fake news.” Increasingly, the concern appears to be less about why Nigerians are dissatisfied than about the public documentation of that dissatisfaction.
In 2025, after the United States issued a travel advisory warning its citizens against travelling to Nigeria over rising insecurity, the Federal Government dismissed it as unjustified and an unfair portrayal of the country. Represented by his Special Assistant on Media and Communication Strategy, Minister of Foreign Affairs Yusuf Tuggar argued that no nation, including the United States, could claim absolute security.
Rather than treat the advisory as evidence of a security problem requiring urgent attention, the government treated it primarily as a public relations problem. The concern was not the condition itself, but the reporting of it. That neatly summarises this administration’s relationship with the media.
This is a government acutely aware of media power and determined to harness it. President Tinubu reportedly has more media aides than any previous Nigerian president, just as his cabinet is one of the largest in the country’s democratic history. His communications operation is extensive, informally including his son, Seyi Tinubu, whose positioning within Nigeria’s entertainment and media ecosystem places him in a particularly useful position in the business of image-making.
The administration has also developed a chronically online style of governance. It is constantly watching, responding, correcting, explaining. Most recently, President Tinubu jokingly referred to First Lady Remi Tinubu as “Iya Alakara” after social media reacted to her remarks suggesting Nigerians could sustain themselves by selling akara. It was an interaction that reflected how closely this administration monitors online discourse.
As the 2027 elections draw closer, the Tinubu administration’s relationship with culture and media will only become more intertwined. The methods may evolve, but the objective appears remarkably consistent: minimize the bad, amplify the good, legitimize the administration, and shape public perception into political support.
George Orwell famously wrote that the Party’s final command was to reject “the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Increasingly, that seems to be what this administration expects of the Nigerian press. Report the projects. Downplay the insecurity. Celebrate the statistics. Ignore the hardship. Talk about the administration—but only say the right things.
The methods may be subtler than military decrees, but the impulse feels strikingly familiar. It is a neo-military relationship with the press: not a demand that journalists stop writing, but that they stop writing what they can plainly see.
