By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
“NGE and NUJ Chasing Shadows,” an opinion piece by Jide Oluwajuyitan published in The Nation on 14 April 2026, presents a critical assessment of Nigeria’s major media professional bodies, arguing that they are increasingly preoccupied with reactive institutional responses rather than engaging the deeper structural crises confronting journalism in the country. The piece raises important questions about relevance, focus, and effectiveness at a time when public confidence in media institutions remains uneven and often contested.
The author specifically challenges the recent posture of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), suggesting that their interventions in matters involving public officials and journalists amount more to symbolic gestures than meaningful reform. In his framing, these organisations appear distracted from urgent internal decay within the profession and instead focused on public controversies that may not significantly advance journalistic standards.
Rather than dismiss such a critique as merely hostile or uninformed, it is necessary to engage it seriously, especially because it reflects a broader sentiment within and outside the profession about the direction of journalism in Nigeria. The gap between institutional self-perception and public expectation has widened in recent years, making introspection unavoidable if the profession is to maintain legitimacy.
There is no denying that Nigerian journalism is under considerable strain, both structurally and ethically. Issues such as declining newsroom resources, inconsistent editorial supervision, and the persistence of unethical financial inducements continue to undermine the credibility of media practice. These challenges are not abstract; they manifest daily in the quality, tone, and trustworthiness of news consumption.
As the author of the original piece indirectly acknowledges, and as many practitioners privately concede, the profession is grappling with visible fractures in its ethical and institutional foundation. The persistence of “brown envelope” practices, the weakening of investigative depth, and the growing tendency to blur reportage with commentary all contribute to a gradual erosion of public trust in journalism as a credible institution.
However, the conclusion that the NUJ and NGE are simply “chasing shadows” risks flattening a much more complex institutional reality. It overlooks the fact that these bodies are operating within a constrained environment where external political pressures and internal professional weaknesses intersect, often simultaneously, leaving little room for linear or purely ideal responses.
In reality, these organisations carry a dual mandate that is inherently difficult to balance. On one hand, they are expected to defend press freedom and protect journalists from intimidation or undue interference. On the other, they are required to address internal professional decay through discipline, regulation, and continuous ethical reinforcement. These responsibilities often pull in different directions.
It is therefore not surprising that their actions may sometimes appear reactive or symbolic when viewed from the outside. In practice, however, such interventions are often attempts to preserve institutional equilibrium in a media ecosystem that is increasingly fragile, politically sensitive, and vulnerable to rapid escalation of tensions.
The recent controversy involving the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, and broadcaster Seun Okinbaloye provides a useful case study for this debate. Critics of the NUJ and NGE argue that their response to such incidents reflects excessive sensitivity to rhetorical or “figurative” political expressions that should otherwise be treated as inconsequential.
Yet in a political environment such as Nigeria’s, the boundary between rhetoric and institutional consequence is not always clearly defined.
Statements made by powerful public officials, even when later clarified or reinterpreted, can carry significant weight in shaping perceptions, expectations, and behaviour within state structures and beyond.
Such expressions, particularly when directed at journalists or media actors, can generate what is often described as a chilling effect, where individuals or institutions begin to moderate their conduct due to perceived risk. This is especially relevant in environments where institutional checks and balances are still evolving and where power asymmetries remain pronounced.
It is within this context that professional bodies often intervene, not necessarily to escalate conflict, but to reaffirm boundaries that are essential for the survival of press freedom. Their responses are therefore better understood as protective institutional actions rather than emotional or partisan reactions to isolated incidents.
The broader claim that Nigerian journalists have become partisan actors or informal agents of political interests also requires careful and nuanced consideration. While there are indeed instances where individual practitioners or outlets fall short of expected neutrality, it is problematic to extend such cases into a sweeping generalisation about the entire profession.
Journalism, by its very nature, operates at the intersection of politics, economics, security, and governance, because these are the primary domains in which public accountability is exercised. Engagement with these areas does not automatically translate into partisanship; rather, it reflects the essential function of journalism in democratic societies.
The role of the journalist is not to replace subject-matter experts or present themselves as authorities in every field, but to interrogate claims made by those in authority, contextualise complex developments, and translate technical or political issues into accessible public knowledge. This interpretive function is central to democratic discourse.
Where credibility is weakened is not in this broad engagement with public affairs, but in failures of verification, insufficient editorial oversight, and occasional lapses where opinion is presented as fact. These are professional shortcomings that require correction, but they do not invalidate the foundational role of journalism itself.
In moments of national crisis, such as the EndSARS protests, media performance must also be assessed within the constraints of operating under uncertainty, limited official transparency, and rapidly evolving digital narratives. These conditions create an environment where misinformation can spread faster than verification processes can reasonably respond.
During such periods, even experienced journalists are often required to make real-time editorial decisions without complete information, while simultaneously navigating emotionally charged public reactions and competing versions of events. While this does not excuse inaccuracies, it underscores the operational difficulties inherent in crisis reporting.
The responsibility of professional bodies like the NUJ and NGE therefore extends beyond defence or criticism alone. They are required to simultaneously uphold press freedom, enforce ethical discipline, support professional development, and advocate for improved welfare conditions that directly affect journalistic independence and performance.
The long-term future of journalism in Nigeria will ultimately depend not on rhetorical dismissals of its institutions, but on their capacity to evolve, self-correct, and strengthen internal accountability while protecting external freedom. The real task is not to choose between shadows and substance, but to ensure that both freedom and responsibility are sustained in a workable balance.
Leman is a former National Secretary, Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ)