In the Daily Graphic edition of October 22, 2015, p.45, George Sydney Abugri wrote a piece titled Probing the Investigative Reporter without a Face, in which the veteran columnist raised certain pertinent ethical issues about the modus operandi of Anas Aremeyaw Anas, following his latest expose.
The following are portions of Mr. Abugri's piece that I found particularly interesting:
"....it has been argued that in exceptional cases, deception may be used. The question is when is deception justified?"
"Deception is generally thought to be justified in cases where the information obtained is of critical importance to society and other ways of getting it have been tried by the investigative journalist without success.
It must also be demonstrated that the harm to society or the public which was prevented by reporting that information using deception, far outweighs any harm caused by the deception." (Emphasis mine)
One would have thought that the "exceptional" nature, "public interest" value and "harm prevention" character of Anas' work was obvious. But Sidney is still concerned that Mr. Aremeyaw "has in his career as a journalist systematically and serially employed deception in the practice of investigative reporting."
The fact is Anas has in his career as a journalist "systematically and serially" done investigative reporting of the kind that is impossible without some form of disguise or imposture. He does not cover stories and routine events; he uncovers incidents of abuse of office and violations of human rights.
Anas' maiden investigative piece as a student journalist involved posing as a peanut snack (nkate burger) seller at the Accra-Tema Motorway toll booth where brisk trading was going on despite a conspicuously cited "No Hawking" sign. Here, he uncovered how the poor hawkers were forced to contribute money to fob off police officers on duty who would otherwise have enforced the ban on hawking.
He receives a tip-off about the use of expired flour that is infested with maggots and weevils to make biscuits for public consumption. Should he approach the Production Manager of the company without any disguise and try to interview him about the adverse information he has received?
Under-aged girls are being trafficked and forced into prostitution; African nationals in Bangkok prisons are being subjected to subhuman treatment, resulting in high mortality among the inmates; Ivoirian rebels cross over to North-western Ghana to cause mayhem, even abducting a local chief; a self-styled Muslim cleric in Bimbila enslaves children to whom he is ostensibly teaching the Qur'an; National Security operatives sent to monitor cocoa smuggling across the border with Cote d'Ivoire, join the smuggling free-for-all; Orphanages at Osu and Mentukwa are paradoxically turned into torture chambers for inmates. Mentally challenged children in parts of northern Ghana are branded evil and murdered by witchdoctors; the Accra Psychiatric hospital descends into moral and managerial anarchy; DVLA and the Passport Office throw caution and due diligence to the wind in the issuance of driving licenses and passports respectively.
The above is Anas' repertoire. Could these have been tackled otherwise than in a sneaky manner? On the face of it alone, you cannot but agree that they are weighty issues that speak to the public safety and national interest elements that justify a breach of the text book instructions on ethical standards.
Indeed, Gilligan (2011) says "if investigative journalism always had to be perfect, very little would get investigated."
Proceeding with his discourse on the latest expose on the Judicial Service, Mr Abugri, quoted John Ndebugre, a lawyer representing some of the judges implicated in the video. The lawyer had described Anas as a "lawless" individual, his Tiger Eye PI Company as a "secret society" and his team of undercover agents as "a cabal".
Mr. Abugri may not have expressed it in so many words, but his next paragraph was as good as an emphatic nod of agreement with the lawyer.
He wrote: "The image Anas has created for the investigative journalist is that of a bogey, on the constant prowl, perpetually snooping around with a hidden camera to expose people."
I can discern that the veteran journalist's outrage and sympathy weigh heavily against Anas and in favour of the judges whom he sees as victims of his fellow journalists' irritating and radical brand of journalism. As a mortal, Anas is fallible. The discharge of Justice Asmah Akwasi Asiedu by the Chief Justice and her investigating committee confirms this, and may revive the debate about the timing of the public showing of the videos.
Anas may have been "snooping about", as Sidney put it. But the fact remains that investigative pieces of the kind that have won him international acclaim do not come from a serendipitous stumble on evidence, but rather from meticulous, painstaking probing.
The apparent slip in respect of Justice Asiedu is costly and unfortunate. The fact remains though, that the ace investigator is not known to launch wanton attacks on other people's dignity. To his credit, he does not indulge in frivolity, vacant sensationalism, tabloid-like gossip or ridicule of any person caught in a private, unguarded moment. He has not shown any interest in the escapades of celebrities, private figures or even public office holders. Neither has he secretly recorded for blackmail purposes, or for any petty reasons, any individual or group engaged in private interactions. His constant focus has been on weightier matters which impact significantly on society and ensure good governance and accountability.
Honest citizens going about their legitimate businesses, therefore, have no cause to feel haunted by the investigator "on the constant prowl." Those who wear no mask in their public tasks should not fear Anas' mask.
Anas is an anti-crime crusader engaged in activist journalism of the kind we would want to see in our corruption-ridden Ghana and the sub-region. Indeed, the culture of corruption in Ghana is deep-seated, and its corrosive effects on the social fabric and the quality of life of the ordinary citizen are dreadful. For this reason, no amount of probing is too intrusive, provided it leads to the exposure of crime.
Though famous investigator has done much, his works, together with those of all investigative journalists and anti-corruption institutions in Ghana, have uncovered only a tip of the monstrous ice-berg of corruption in our country. That is why it is extremely sad to read the "we have had enough" tone of the article under reference.
In 2001, Anas caused the removal from office of a top Customs officer involved in a sugar deal that cost the nation 5.2 billion old Ghana Cedis. The then budding journalist had to get himself hired among the nocturnal workers who secretly carted the sugar from the bonded warehouse. This expose earned him a dinner with president Kuffour who was more interested in the public interest value of the discovery than the methods used.
Similarly, in 2009, the British people, far from squirming in discomfort at the battering of the reputation of their MPs, overwhelmingly approved the Telegraph for exposing their greedy and unworthy representatives when the paper reported that the MPs had inflated their expenditures to make illegal expenses claims. This was despite the fact that the paper admitted having bought the information. Although the paper's approach contravened media ethics, it maintained that its action was in the public interest, and insisted that the information could not have been obtained through legal means. Three of the MPs involved were jailed after an official public inquiry.
But let me return to Sydney Abugri for more queries:
"Did the 34 judges plan to receive the monies Anas paid to them or were they minding their own business when Anas came along and lured them to accept money employing the tactic of entrapment to prove that the judges are corrupt?"
Of course, judges worth that noble title would continue to mind their own business even if you dangle a pot of gold before their noses. Some would even cause the arrest of their tempter, as indeed a few are reported to have done. In cases of bribery, is temptation an excuse, even for a judge? Are they, like the clergy, not the moral beacons of our society?
The law on defilement in Ghana is pertinent here. It essentially states that when an adult sleeps with an under-aged girl (17 and below), it constitutes defilement, and the girl remains the victim even if she might have seduced the culprit. That is to say, the adult has a moral duty to protect the innocent girl from her infantile fantasies.
Ironically, the judges, who help to enforce this law, allow themselves to be lured into receiving bribes, and their starry-eyed admirers would ask Ghanaians to sympathise with them! Are our judges, in this case, not in a similar position as the adult under carnal temptation from a minor?
It would have been an entirely different matter if the apologists could prove that the videos were doctored; that the purpose for which the judges took the monies was unrelated to the cases they were handling; that Anas pretended to have offered them an innocent gift, only to film it and misrepresent the transaction as bribes. If this was the case, the judges' defenders might have had a point. Unfortunately for them, the evidence is not just visual but is backed by audio and transcriptions that leave no doubt that the bribe-taking judges knew what they were bargaining for.
Mr. Abugri proceeds: "Public sector corruption involves inflated travel and hotel expenses, official payments to nonexistent people, over-invoicing and under-invoicing in public supply and work contracts and similar criminal behaviour." Exposing such crimes "requires different investigative journalism skills based on vast reading, research, a good grounding on public sector accounting and financial procedures, and contacts in high and sensitive places".
I agree with Sidney that not all kinds of corruption can be exposed through the Tiger Eye PI methods. And not all journalists have the guts of Anas. The problem is that the average Ghanaian journalist is smarting under the scourge of poor remuneration, inadequate capacity and lack of motivation. Consequently, the methods that the veteran is advocating are far beyond their limited capacity.
The senior journalist will, therefore, do Ghana invaluable service if he goes ahead to fight public sector corruption using the expertise and contacts he enumerated above, which I believe he possesses. Also, it will be to his eternal credit if he can put together a few promising and willing journalists and build their capacity to do investigative reporting using those processes.
There was also some concern about the "deafening applause from the public gallery" that has drowned critical concerns about Anas' methods. Fortunately, the applause has subsided enough for our senior brother to get his words of caution across. They are well noted.
It is important to point out, nonetheless, that former presidents J.A. Kufour, J.J Rawlings, J.E.A. Mills and sitting president John Mahama, alongside several notable people and institutions in Ghana and abroad, have been part of the gallery that is applauding the ace investigator.
Indeed, Nana Akuffo Addo has pledged to adopt what he called the "Anas Principle" to fight corruption. "The principle, Nana Addo says, will infest the disciples of corruption with fear and paranoia in that you may never know that the person you are giving the bribe to or receiving it from may be an under-cover agent. "The New Crusading Guide, Feb 8, 2012, p.3." He was speaking to Ghanaians in the U.S.A as presidential candidate of the NPP in 2012.
Anas' pulsating success in exposing crime could be the envy of the state anti-crime institutions like CHRAJ, EOCO, NACOB, the BNI, National Security and the Criminal Investigation Department of the police service.
One would have thought that if anyone would begrudge him the adulations, it would be the above-named institutions, and not a senior comrade who should provide inspiration.
Muheeb Saeed,
Programme Officer,
MFWA
