By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
There are moments when journalism itself becomes the subject of public debate, offering an opportunity to reflect on the values, responsibilities and professional standards that bind us together.
The ongoing exchange between the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and The Nation newspaper is one such moment.
Beyond the immediate disagreement lies a broader question of how can media institutions sustain public confidence, demonstrate professional independence and manage differences in ways that strengthen, rather than undermine, journalism’s credibility?
Having read The Nation’s editorial, “Journalists Failed Journalism”, published on Thursday, October 8, 2026, alongside the NGE’s response, I have been moved to reflect on the issues raised and their implications for our profession.
I write not to endorse either position or adjudicate the disagreement, but to offer a considered perspective informed by my years in journalism and my experience as a former National Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ).
From that vantage point, I believe this moment calls for restraint, open-mindedness and a shared commitment to professional accountability. Our differences, however strongly expressed, should ultimately serve the purpose of strengthening journalism and preserving the public trust on which it depends.
The controversy arose from the 22nd All Nigeria Editors Conference in Enugu, where the NGE organised an executive session intended to engage political leaders and other public figures on democracy, elections, artificial intelligence, disinformation and the future of Nigeria.
Among those who attended and addressed the gathering were Peter Obi and Professor Pat Utomi. The Nation subsequently questioned the political implications of Obi’s participation and whether the arrangements for the session adequately reflected the professional neutrality expected of the Guild.
These concerns deserve consideration. Equally, it is important to distinguish between the perception of political imbalance and evidence of deliberate partisanship. The presence of an opposition figure at a professional gathering does not, in itself, establish political endorsement, just as the participation of government officials does not automatically settle every question about balance.
The context, selection of participants, purpose of the engagement and opportunities offered to other political interests are all relevant to a fair assessment.
In its response, the NGE stated that invitations were extended to representatives of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the New Democratic Congress (NDC), and that efforts were made to secure their participation.
The Guild also referred to subsequent contacts involving its leadership and representatives associated with other political figures.
These explanations form part of the available account and deserve consideration.
Nevertheless, the controversy presents an opportunity for the Guild to clarify its invitation process, where necessary, so that questions about the intended composition of the session can be distinguished from the practical challenges of securing attendance.
Anyone who has organised a professional gathering understands that invitations do not always translate into attendance. Schedules change, other commitments intervene, and prospective participants may have reasons for declining or being unable to attend.
Organisers cannot control every circumstance, but they can ensure that their selection criteria are clear, their intentions are properly communicated and their arrangements can withstand legitimate scrutiny.
Some questions therefore merit clarification. Were invitations directed to presidential aspirants, party chairmen or designated representatives? What considerations informed the choice of those approached? How was the participation of different political interests envisaged?
These are questions for clarification, not grounds for presuming that any individual or political tendency was deliberately excluded. From the information presently available to me, it would be inappropriate to reach a definitive conclusion about the full scope of the invitation process or the circumstances surrounding the attendance or absence of particular individuals.
Nor should every political party or prospective presidential candidate necessarily expect representation at every editors’ conference. Professional bodies must retain the discretion to design their programmes according to their objectives, available time and other practical considerations.
What matters is that the principles guiding such decisions are reasonable, consistently applied and capable of explanation when legitimate questions arise.
Transparency is particularly valuable when perceptions of political neutrality become a subject of public debate. A clear explanation of the selection process may not eliminate every disagreement, but it can help the public understand the circumstances and reduce avoidable misunderstanding.
The NGE has also stated that representatives of the Tinubu administration participated in the conference.
These reportedly included Tunde Rahman, Senior Media Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu; Ali M. Ali, Managing Director of the News Agency of Nigeria, who represented the Minister of Information and National Orientation; and Vice-President Kashim Shettima, who addressed the gathering virtually.
Their participation is relevant to the broader discussion and should be considered alongside that of Peter Obi and other speakers. A fair assessment must consider the conference programme as a whole, the roles of the various participants and the opportunities available for engagement.
For me, the fundamental issue is the distinction between providing a platform for engagement and endorsing the political views of those who use it. Journalism depends on the ability to engage people across political, ideological and institutional divides.
Editors and journalists must be able to question public officials, listen to opposition figures and examine competing viewpoints without being presumed to share the political interests of any of them.
Engagement across differences is central to the media’s democratic responsibility. The challenge for professional associations is to create opportunities for such engagement while protecting their independence and ensuring that their decisions do not reasonably undermine confidence in their impartiality.
This requires more than an assurance of neutrality. It demands sound judgement, consistency and a willingness to explain decisions when questions arise. Equally, it requires the profession to recognise that perceptions, although important, are not always conclusive evidence of intent.
The Nation’s editorial should be approached within the same framework. Editorial independence includes the right, and indeed the responsibility, to question the decisions of professional bodies and draw attention to matters that warrant scrutiny. The NGE, in turn, has every right to explain its decisions, correct misunderstandings and defend its institutional position.
Both roles are legitimate and necessary in a healthy media environment. Institutional criticism is most effective when grounded in carefully examined facts, while institutional responses are most persuasive when they address the substance of concerns with clarity and a willingness to engage.
Neither criticism nor explanation should be treated as inherently hostile. A newspaper that questions a professional association is not necessarily acting against the profession, just as an association that challenges an editorial is not necessarily seeking to suppress criticism.
The substance, evidence and manner of the exchange matter more than the mere fact of disagreement.
As a profession, we must not allow differences of interpretation to harden into institutional antagonism. Where information is incomplete or accounts differ, there is value in seeking clarification before arriving at firm conclusions.
This does not mean avoiding difficult questions or weakening editorial scrutiny. It means recognising that fairness requires both the freedom to raise concerns and the discipline to assess the available evidence.
Another issue raised in The Nation’s editorial concerns the allegation that some participants who attempted to question the speakers were booed or shouted down.
This deserves attention, particularly given the standards expected at a gathering of editors.
However, the circumstances should be established before conclusions are drawn about what occurred, who was responsible or what motivated the conduct. If there were disagreements over the management of questions or audience participation, a factual clarification from those familiar with the proceedings would help establish a common understanding.
Professional gatherings should encourage robust exchanges of ideas, respectful disagreement and meaningful opportunities for questions. Disagreement is not, in itself, a problem; the manner in which it is managed often determines whether it promotes understanding or deepens division.
A calm, evidence-based account of any disputed incident would therefore serve the interests of all concerned.
These considerations become even more significant as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections. Political competition is likely to intensify, and the conduct of media institutions will attract heightened public attention. Conference programmes, invitations, public appearances and interactions with political figures may be interpreted through competing political perspectives, sometimes beyond the intentions of the organisers.
Editors and professional associations must therefore exercise sound judgement and communicate their decisions clearly. Media organisations, commentators and individual journalists have a corresponding responsibility to avoid attributing political motives without sufficient evidence.
The standard should be the same for everyone. Neither an allegation of bias nor a declaration of neutrality should automatically end a discussion. Both should be examined against the facts, circumstances and relevant professional principles.
That is how a mature profession protects its independence without becoming defensive or dismissive of legitimate concerns.
From my perspective, the present disagreement offers the NGE an opportunity to consider whether its procedures for engaging political actors at future conferences could be made clearer to members and the wider public.
Where appropriate, a brief explanation of invitation criteria, the intended balance of participation and the format of such sessions could help manage expectations and strengthen confidence in the Guild’s decisions.
Similarly, The Nation and other media organisations may wish to reflect on how institutional criticism can remain firm and searching while allowing sufficient room for context, explanation and the possibility that initial impressions may need to be reconsidered.
These principles apply to the wider profession. Every media organisation and professional association, regardless of its standing or history, has something to gain from reviewing its practices, explaining its decisions and remaining receptive to constructive criticism.
My years in journalism, including my service at the national leadership level of the NUJ, have reinforced my appreciation of professional solidarity. Solidarity, however, should not be confused with silence or an obligation to defend every action taken by a colleague or institution. Nor should professional disagreement be interpreted as disloyalty.
A credible profession must accommodate internal criticism without losing its sense of common purpose. We must be willing to question one another, listen to differing perspectives and acknowledge the need for improvement where it arises. Such an approach strengthens professional institutions because it places standards above personalities and collective responsibility above the impulse to win an argument.
For this reason, I would prefer the disagreement between the NGE and The Nation to be seen as an opportunity for reflection rather than a contest in which one institution must be wholly vindicated and the other entirely discredited. Both occupy important positions within Nigeria’s media landscape, and their respective responsibilities can contribute to a stronger profession when exercised with mutual respect.
The temptation in a public controversy is often to reach a verdict quickly. Yet, where questions remain unanswered and accounts require clarification, patience can be as important as conviction. There is no loss of professional standing in acknowledging uncertainty, seeking additional information or revisiting an earlier position in the light of new evidence.
As we look towards 2027, I hope this exchange encourages a renewed commitment to transparency, fairness, professional independence and respectful engagement. The NGE can contribute by providing clarification where needed.
The Nation can serve the profession through rigorous, evidence-based editorial scrutiny. Other journalists and media institutions can play their part by encouraging informed discussion rather than rushing to conclusions.
The responsibility for upholding journalism’s credibility belongs to all of us. It cannot rest solely on an editors’ guild, a newspaper, a union or any individual practitioner. It is a shared responsibility, reflected in our professional decisions, public statements and willingness to hold ourselves to the same standards we expect of others.
Journalism derives its strength from the freedom to question, the courage to challenge, the discipline to verify and the humility to correct. These values apply not only to how we report the affairs of government and society, but also to how we manage disagreements within our own profession.
Perhaps the most constructive question arising from this controversy is not simply who failed journalism, but what the experience can teach us about protecting its credibility and strengthening the institutions entrusted with its stewardship.
That, in my considered view, is the conversation worth having—one that the NGE, The Nation and the wider Nigerian media profession should pursue in the spirit of mutual respect, professional responsibility and a shared commitment to the public interest.
Leman is a former National Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ).