Inadvisability Of Rewriting Old Stories To Attack Peter Obi -By Isaac Asabor

Politics, they say, is a game of interests. In Nigeria, however, it sometimes appears to be a game in which anything goes, including the manipulation of history to discredit political opponents.

That is why the attempt to use a reworked P.M. News publication to attack Peter Obi should not be dismissed as just another piece of political propaganda making the rounds on social media. The viral newspaper image purportedly showed the former Anambra State governor as the subject of a 2006 P.M. News report headlined, “How I Was Cured Of Madness.” At first glance, anyone unfamiliar with the original publication could easily believe that the report was about Obi. But there was a problem: it was not.

The original July 17, 2006 P.M. News publication identified Femi Fani-Kayode, not Peter Obi, as the subject of the story. The circulating version had apparently substituted Obi’s name and photograph while retaining elements of the original newspaper page. Fact-checking organizations subsequently established that the image had been altered. And therein lies the real issue.

There is nothing unusual about politicians being criticized. Peter Obi, like every other public figure, is open to scrutiny. His record as governor, his political positions, his public statements and his presidential ambition can all be examined, challenged and criticized.

But criticism should be based on facts. If there is a documented statement by Obi that deserves condemnation, publish it. If there is an aspect of his record that raises questions, produce the evidence. If his political claims are considered questionable, subject them to rigorous scrutiny. What should not be done is to take another man’s newspaper story, change the identity of the person involved and circulate the altered version as though it were an authentic historical record. That is where political disagreement begins to degenerate into something else.

Indeed, the irony is striking. The original story was about Fani-Kayode, whose political disagreements with Obi are themselves well documented. Nobody needs to manufacture a 2006 newspaper report to establish that Nigerian politicians have disagreed with one another. The truth already provides enough ammunition for political debate.

This is why the incident should concern not only supporters of Peter Obi but everyone who cares about the credibility of information in Nigeria. A newspaper archive is supposed to preserve history. Once people begin altering archived publications to suit contemporary political battles, the boundary between fact and fabrication becomes dangerously blurred.

Imagine, for instance, if tomorrow somebody takes an authentic report about President Bola Tinubu, Atiku Abubakar, Femi Fani-Kayode or any other politician, replaces the photograph and name with those of another politician and circulates it as an original publication. Would that suddenly become acceptable because the target happened to be a political opponent? Certainly not.

In fact, political loyalty should not determine our attitude to truth. Unfortunately, social media has made such manipulation particularly dangerous. An altered newspaper page can be produced within minutes and circulated to thousands of people before the original publication is located. By the time a fact-check emerges, the falsehood may already have travelled much farther than the correction. This is how fabricated information gradually acquires the appearance of history. And that is why political actors and their supporters must be particularly careful.

There is a legitimate place for propaganda in politics in the sense that political campaigns naturally seek to persuade voters. But persuasion should not be confused with fabrication. A political opponent can be defeated in argument without falsifying the historical record.

In fact, the attempt to rewrite FFK’s story in order to attack Obi raises a larger question: “what has happened to political disagreement when an opponent’s real record is no longer considered sufficient material for criticism?”

If Peter Obi has made mistakes, let them be identified. If he has made controversial statements, let the statements be published. If his policies or political decisions are considered defective, let critics explain why. If allegations are made against him, let the evidence supporting those allegations be produced. But creating a false newspaper history is not accountability. It is not investigative journalism. It is not legitimate political criticism. It is calumny.

And when calumny is dressed up in the appearance of an authentic newspaper archive, the matter becomes even more troubling because it attempts to exploit public trust in the media.

For journalists, this should be particularly disturbing. Newspapers may make mistakes, but deliberately altering a publication and passing the altered version off as genuine attacks the credibility of journalism itself. The P.M. News name and archive should not become instruments for settling contemporary political scores.

There is also a lesson here for the public. Nigerians must become more cautious about what they consume and share online. A newspaper-looking image is not necessarily a newspaper report. A familiar logo does not automatically authenticate the content beneath it. Old publications should be checked against credible archives before they are accepted as historical evidence.

But the responsibility cannot rest entirely with the public. The person or persons behind such deliberate manipulation should be identified. If an investigation establishes who created and circulated the altered publication, the appropriate authorities should determine whether any law was breached and take the necessary legal steps. Where an offence is established, the perpetrator should be prosecuted and dealt with according to law. This is not about shielding Peter Obi from criticism. It is about drawing a line between political contest and deliberate deception.

Nigeria’s democracy needs vigorous disagreement. It needs politicians who can challenge one another and citizens who can interrogate the claims of political leaders. It needs journalists who can investigate those in power and opposition figures alike. But none of that requires rewriting history.

Peter Obi may be criticized. Fani-Kayode may be criticized. Tinubu may be criticized. Atiku may be criticized. Every public figure must be open to legitimate scrutiny. But nobody should have his reputation attacked with evidence manufactured by changing somebody else’s history. The original P.M. News story belonged to Femi Fani-Kayode. Reworking it and attaching Peter Obi’s name to it does not change that fact. It only demonstrates how far some people may be prepared to go in political combat. And when political combat reaches the point where yesterday’s newspaper must be rewritten to damage today’s opponent, calumny has gone too far.