Multiple and complex needs: survey findings

131 The above picture appearing on the page 6 of February 23, 2017 edition of Daily Sun shows the IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, being led out of the court. He is on handcuffs and surrounded by security agents. His head is bent a little downwards while his gaze is extinguished, completely off the camera. Whether a pictured subject is gazing upwards, downwards or straight has a potential implication for meaning (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Kanu is pictured shackled, hemmed in by the state power of coercion as represented by the security agents. This, combined with his turned-off gaze and the overall context of the discourse of marginalisation and imperative of self-determination, might have had the effect of portraying Kanu in the mould of a persecuted freedom fighter; a martyr.

132 i. “We will resist any intimidation, MEND tells FG” (Vanguard, May 19, 2016, p.7) ii. “Ohanaeze cautions against clamp-down on agitating groups” (The Nation, January 19,

2017, p.11)

iii. “Suppression of ethnic agitations unhelpful – Afenifere” (The Nation, May 19, 2016, p.3)

iv. “Biafra only solution to persecution of Ndigbo – IPOB” (Daily Sun, March 22, 2017, p.4)

v. “Fulani group cautions against vicitmisation of herders” (Daily Trust, April 18, 2017, p.4)

In the above examples, the words “intimidation”, “clamp-down”, “suppression”, “victimisation”

and “persecution” necessarily connote the existence of a predator and its victim. Their contexts of use will make this clearer. In the report “Fulani group cautions against vicitmisation of herders”, Abbas Jimoh of Daily Trust writes:

A Fulani group, Gan Allah Fulani Development Association of Nigeria (GAFDAN), has cautioned against unnecessary victimisation of herdsmen over the growing spate of farmers-herdsmen clashes in parts of the country. The group, in a statement, observed that farmers-herdsmen clashes had been with the nation for many years and that the government should find ways of solving the problem once and for all rather than what it sees as the current tendency to vicitmise a particular group (p.4) (Emphasis supplied by the researcher).

In another report “Suppression of ethnic agitations unhelpful – Afenifere”, Sina Fadire, reporting in The Nation of May 19, 2016, writes:

Afenifere, a Yoruba socio-cultural group, has warned that attempts at suppressing ethnic agitations in the country will not be in the interest of the country. Afeninfere, which spoke against the backdrop of the rising wave of agitations by groups such as the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and Egbesu Boys of the Niger Delta (EBND) among other groups, reaffirmed its belief in dialogue and restructuring as the panacea to the unending ethnic tensions in the country (p.3) (Emphasis supplied by the researcher).

133 In the first example, the word “victimisation” embodies an ideological intent to make a group (Fulani herders) not blameable by portraying them as a victim of their accusers, this way automatically but implicitly portraying these unnamed accusers as persecutors. In the second example, the word “suppressing” automatically portrays the agitating groups as a victim of a repressive government of Nigeria. An underlying ideological trick in the deployment of the word here is seen in the fact that “suppression” appears to encompass all counter-actions by the government including perhaps lawful actions against groups that might be disruptive in their methods. Thus, “agitations” are legitimated irrespective of their moral and legal implications.

Generally, in reports concerning radical groups like IPOB, MASSOB, MEND, Niger Delta Avengers etc, words like these are found to the extent of overlexicalisation. For instance, in reports related to IPOB and MASSOB, words like “harassment”, “incessant arrest” “illegal detention” and “intimidation” among others, which are all implicated in the persecutor-victim bias, were copiously used. A specific example is the report by Gabriel Ewepu at page 19 of Vanguard of May 19, 2016 entitled “We will resist any intimidation, MEND tells FG” wherein the word “intimidation” and its verbal form “intimidate” appeared a total of 11 times, amounting to an average of 1.2 per paragraph. Such overlexicalisation is usually an indication of ideological intent (Teo, 2000).

A similar pattern was also observed with the use of the word “struggle” in the report by Geoffrey Anyanwu on page 11 of Daily Sun of May 23, 2017 entitled “Biafra Day: IPOB appeals for solidarity”. This word, which evokes the binary image of a persistent persecutor and an unyielding victim “struggling” for self-emancipation, was used nine times in the six-paragraph story, amounting to 1.5 times per paragraph. Generally, “struggle” with its verbal variant was found to be copiously recurring in reports concerning militant groups like MEND and Avengers as well as other radical groups like IPOB, MASSOB, MOSOP and IYC among others. As it

134 appeared, this word was usually deployed within the context of an inter-textuality that resonates the usual moral glamour associated with “struggles”. For instance, one may think of famous international historical episodes like the “struggle” against slave trade, the “struggle” against racism in America and the “struggle” against apartheid in South Africa as well as local parallels like the “struggle” for independence and the “struggle” against military rule (i.e. struggle for democracy). Thus, the word “struggle” with its synonym “fight”, as used in reports concerning the ethnic interest groups, apparently became a tool for conferring moral legitimacy on the agitations of the groups.

The suggestion that the newspapers attempted to legitimate the presence of these ethnic interest groups may gain further credence in the data generated via quantitative content analysis. Data in Table 4.1 indicate that ethnic interest groups were a regular news subject in the newspapers with majority (66.2%) of the editions publishing reports on them. Then Tables 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 show that the pattern of page placement of the reports, their page rating and headline size respectively suggest that the newspapers placed some value on the activities and communications of the ethnic interest groups; they found them deserving of prominent treatment. Also, from Table 4.5, it is observed that newspapers largely reported the ethnic interest groups in terms of the advocacy they make; the ideas they promote and what they want done. This suggests that the newspapers tend to view them as important voices in the national discourse whose opinions and suggestions on the nation should be heard. A combined reading of these data and the CDA analysis strongly indicated an attempt at invoking legitimacy around these interest groups.