How Can Media/Journalists Report Insecurity Without Aiding It?
Editorial Note: In this piece, Legit.ng's head of the politics and current affairs desk, Nurudeen Lawal, writes about how the media/journalists can safely report insecurity without aiding it.
A couple of years ago, Daily Trust, one of Nigeria’s major dailies, witnessed a shocking incident that threatened its operations: Nigerian soldiers stormed its offices in Maiduguri, Borno state and Abuja, Nigeria’s capital.
At the head office in Abuja, the soldiers arrested an operations staff member and carted away several computers. In Maiduguri, they arrested the northeast regional bureau chief, Uthman Abubakar, along with a reporter, Ibrahim Sawab.
Source: Getty Images
What was Daily Trust’s offence? The military provided an answer a day after the operation: the newspaper was, through an article titled “Military prepares massive operation to retake Baga, others”, accused of divulging classified military information related to planned attacks against Boko Haram terrorists. It said this action undermined national security.
While the military’s storming of Daily Trust offices stands condemned, the point about the article divulging military strategy/ classified information and undermining national security needs to be examined.
Citing credible sources in the Nigerian Defence Headquarters, the article published on Sunday, January 6, 2019, reported that the military was mobilising thousands of troops and equipment for a major offensive to retake the town of Baga and five others in the northern part of Borno state, which had been overrun and seized by Boko Haram terrorists. The article also featured an infographic and video showing the “areas that a major military offensive is expected to cover”. It added that all three arms of the military (army, navy, air force) would participate in the offensive operation.
Daily Trust would argue, and validly so, that the article falls within public interest reporting. It documented the fall of towns to insurgents, humanitarian displacement, and military preparation to respond, using sources which include security operatives, local residents, and displaced people. The article also provided context, including ISWAP expansion, military setbacks, and regional security dynamics. This is a standard conflict reporting practice. The International Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists stipulates the journalist’s duty to respect the right of the public to know the truth. And one can validly argue that this was the duty Daily Trust performed through the article.
However, the military’s claim that the article exposes operational intelligence is also cogent. The article, though it did not publish a full battle plan, revealed a planned offensive, troop mobilisation, involvement of multiple military branches and the target areas. In insurgency warfare, even partial information like this can alert militants to prepare ambushes, allow them to relocate weapons or fighters and weaken the element of surprise which the military plotted to use against them.
Fast forward to the unfortunate killing of Brigadier General Musa Uba, commander of the 25 Brigade of the Nigerian Army, by terrorists in November 2025. Uba was leading his men and members of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) when the insurgents ambushed them along the Damboa-Biu axis, killing four operatives, two soldiers and two CJTF officials. He escaped the initial ambush and was communicating with military authorities to return to base when he was captured by the terrorists, who subsequently killed him. Nevertheless, there was controversy regarding the general’s death. And at the centre of that controversy is another media report: a story by Humangle.
On November 15, 2025, Humangle, a non-profit media organisation that specialises in covering insecurity, reported that ISWAP terrorists ambushed a military convoy on Damboa–Biu Road in Borno state. The newspaper stated that the ambush by the terrorists on a joint military and Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) convoy resulted in the deaths of several soldiers and CJTF members, with the general’s whereabouts initially reported as unknown. After initially reporting that the general was abducted, HumAngle, citing sources on the ground, said the general had escaped.
“We later reported that he had escaped on foot and returned to base, after several security sources insisted on this,” the newspaper stated, adding that its sources claimed the Commander was able to return on foot after missing for several hours.
“We don’t know where he is at the moment. But he responds to WhatsApp messages,” Humangle quoted a senior CJTF member in Damboa, who witnessed the convoy’s departure, as saying. However, the Nigerian Army dismissed the Humangle report, stating that Uba “successfully led troops back to base” after the ambush.
Standing by its report and moving to defend its editorial integrity, Humangle published another report stating that it has seen a verified image showing the commander in the custody of ISWAP insurgents, with a gunshot wound to the leg. It, however, did not publish the photo, citing its editorial policies. The presidency eventually released a statement confirming the death of the general at the hands of the terrorists.
Unlike the Daily Trust’s report, Humangle did not report the Army’s operational plans. It simply reported an abduction, which is within the realm of public interest reporting. However, a problem arises when Humangle, citing anonymous sources, reported the status of the general and his mode of communication when his safety had not been established.
The report revealed details that could have potentially exposed the general, his communication channel (WhatsApp) and his mode of transport (“escaped on foot”). In trying to prove its credibility, the Humangle report appears to reveal sensitive information rapidly during an active security situation.
Weighing in on the development, Taiwo Hassan Adebayo, a former head of investigations at Premium Times, said the capture and execution of Gen Uba “illustrates the tension between the public’s right to know and the journalist’s duty to avoid causing further harm.”
He added:
“In hindsight, though often an unfair judge, could a different editorial decision by Humangle have changed the outcome?
“Again, it’s a sobering reminder that conflict reporting is delicate. It’s not just about speed and truth, which is sacrosanct, but also about consequence. The question is not whether the media should report a senior officer missing in action, which is newsworthy. The deeper and ethical question is whether publication should wait until the safety and status of the officer are confirmed with reasonable certainty.”
To be clear, reporting insecurity remains essential for the media. However, the point here is to do so responsibly. While security reporting satisfies the public’s right to know, ensures that governments and security agencies are held accountable, and provides early warning for communities, it also (especially if mishandled) amplifies fear, gives criminals publicity which they usually crave and reveals sensitive operational information. Thus, how does the media report insecurity without inadvertently aiding it? How should the media strike a balance?
First, media platforms should conduct a risk assessment test before running security stories. The test should answer three key questions: Could this information endanger lives? Could it assist insurgents? Is the information essential for public understanding? The answers to the three questions will help in determining whether to run the stories, delay them or abandon them.
Second, media platforms should adopt conflict-zone editorial protocols which include waiting for multiple confirmations before publishing sensitive updates, using holding statements when facts are unclear, avoiding publishing real-time operational details/intelligence, battle plans, attack timelines, troop movements, communication channels, and location. Safe security reporting focuses on impact rather than tactics, humanitarian consequences, displacement, policy failures, and trends, among others.
According to a handbook on conflict reporting authored by journalist and associate professor Serhiy Shtirkhetsky, Mykhailo Buromensky, Professor at the International Law, Zoya Kazanji, communications expert, and others:
“Journalistic reports on combat operations should not disclose the following information: exact data on deployment and movements of the troops or their units; number of military personnel in different combat sectors; exact data on types and number of weapons in specific units; information about commanders’ plans and about combat tactics, etc.”
Third, journalists and media houses must report only verified information and avoid misinformation.
“Always distinguish between verified news and claims of responsibility (state clearly: 'Group X claimed responsibility, this has not been independently verified'), Dr Kabir Adamu, founder and managing director of Beacon Security & Intelligence Limited, said.
The renowned security expert further said the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Ethics already provides a strong foundation for responsible reporting, particularly around accuracy, privacy and national security. However, he stressed that media organisations must go further by institutionalising these principles within newsroom policies backed by enforcement mechanisms.
He also proposed a simple editorial guideline before publishing any security story: Ask before each report, “Does this information help the public protect themselves and hold authorities accountable, without helping the perpetrator or harming victims?” If the answer is uncertain, err on the side of redaction and seek expert review.
Dr Adamu further outlined practical safeguards for conflict reporting. These include avoiding graphic operational detail that could serve as a “blueprint” for attackers, limiting the publication of propaganda or direct threats from armed groups, and prioritising verified information over speed. He also urged journalists to avoid real-time disclosure of troop movements, hostage situations, or escape routes, warning that such details can endanger lives during active operations.
"Journalists should limit perpetrators’ airtime and quotes. They should not publish full manifestos, propaganda videos, or direct threats by perpetrators,” he said, adding that they should focus on resilience and response, highlight community coping, security force actions, medical aid, and victim support.
“This counters the terror objective of spreading helplessness,” Dr Adamu added, suggesting the use of victim-centred, not shock-driven, language.
“Never broadcast real-time movements of hostages, security deployments, or escape routes. Report only after authorities confirm the situation is contained.”
Nevertheless, the military and other security agencies also have a critical role to play in ensuring responsible security reporting. This can be achieved through the timely and proactive disclosure of unclassified information to journalists. Where official information is delayed or withheld, journalists are left to fill gaps in the public interest, a space that is often quickly occupied by rumours, speculation and misinformation.
Source: Getty Images
While journalists have a duty to uphold the public’s right to know, this responsibility is significantly strengthened when security agencies provide credible, timely and accessible briefings that help shape accurate reporting during crises.
Sadly, security institutions have generally performed poorly in this regard. For instance, the 2024 Freedom of Information (FoI) ranking highlighted persistent gaps in transparency and responsiveness across key government institutions. According to the ranking, some of the lowest-performing institutions include the Office of the National Security Adviser, the Federal Ministry of Police Affairs, and the Nigerian Army, among others.
In the end, responsible conflict reporting is not about choosing between silence and disclosure, but about making deliberate editorial judgments that protect victims and security agents and hold the government accountable without spreading fear or glorifying the perpetrators. Security reporting will always carry tension because it often operates in real time, under uncertainty, and often in life-or-death contexts. But that is precisely why verification, restraint, and collaboration between journalists and security institutions matter. When media houses strengthen internal safeguards and security agencies improve transparency, the space for irresponsible reporting and misinformation shrinks, the public is better served, and the government is properly held accountable. The goal, therefore, is not to weaken journalism in moments of crisis, but to sharpen it so that it informs without inadvertently inflaming or endangering the very realities it seeks to expose.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Legit.ng.
Source: Legit.ng
