In the wake of Anas’s Number 12 expose on football corruption, there has been, in the midst of the orgy of excitement and outrage, the usual debate about the investigative journalist’s extreme methods.
However, as a student of the Islamic faith, I feel obliged to respond to issues of Islamic ethics raised in the piece titled Anas’s Mode of Investigative Journalism, Unethical, Unislamic authored by one Mohammed Amin Lamptey, who describes himself a muslim journalist.
Quoting copiously from the Quran, Mohammed Amin Lamptey concludes that Anas’ work is unislamic;
Q 49:12 – Do not mock and ridicule one other; do not spy on each other
Q 10:35 – Do not dwell on conjecture
Q 49:6 – Verify information from disreputable people to avoid destroying other people’s reputation
Q 4:83 – Refer fear and security information to the Messenger (Peace and blessing upon him) and people in authority for investigation.
If any journalists in Ghana and across the world observe the above Quranic principles to the letter, then Anas is one of them. The public spreads rumours and the famed investigative journalist goes after the evidence. It is not the other way round. Lamptey cannot deny that before Number 12, there was widespread and almost tangible public perception about corruption in the GFA, especially regarding the many controversial GPL sponsorship deals that often collapse midstream. Anas literally undertook to verify that perception to disprove or confirm it.
Again, on the issue of referring sensitive security issues to the appropriate authorities, that is what Anas has done. He passed the information by the President, a decision which Lamptey unwittingly criticizes in his article. Moreover, it is FIFA, CAF and the authorities in Ghana and not the public that is deciding whether the persons implicated are guilty. Whoever is cleared has the right to go to court.
Now to the religious injunction not to spy on each other; is it absolute or relative? Let’s take this scenario. In the wake of the baby-stealing allegations at some of the hospitals in Ghana, a muslim journalist poses as a wealthy dowager who is desperate to have a baby at any price. A senior nurse obliges and produces a bouncing baby boy! The next moment, the nurse is handcuffed and whisked away to the police station and the next day, the journalist releases the video of the transaction. This will be unislamic, according to Lamptey’s interpretation?
As a general rule and in the spirit of good neighbourliness, muslims must see their neighbours as honest and honourable persons and avoid suspecting or spying on them. Perfectly understood. But does this ethical code extend to a muslim who, as a journalist, has reasonable grounds to believe that the public interest is being undermined in a particular institution? Do remember, Mr. Lamptey, that Anas’ real target has not been innocent individuals, but public institutions infested with corruption. The individuals become the natural victims because they are the agents of these institutions.
Again, if the injunction not to spy on each other is absolute, then we are to assume that governments in muslim countries should not set up intelligence organisations? Is it haram for a Ghanaian muslim to be part of the BNI, CID, National Security and the NACOB?
As Lamptey himself acknowledged, the media is termed as the fourth estate of the realm and an integral part of the government machinery. A journalist is not a private person but part of the institution constitutionally mandated, among other functions, to help check corruption. This is what confers certain privileges on the media including invading individuals’ privacy in the interest of the public. It is up to the journalist to make that decision and to subsequently defend it in a court of law or any duly constituted judicial body. The potentially crippling damages and the deadly blow that can be dealt to the journalists’ credibility when they lose such a legal tussle often act as a counter-check.
And contrary to Lamptey’s claim that Anas lost suits related to the judicial expose, the investigative journalist, I have ascertained, has not lost any legal battle. More importantly, the affected judges rather failed to establish their innocence when they appeared before the Judicial Committee and were given the opportunity to cross examine their accuser.
In conclusion, I wish to advise Lamptey to be wary of falling into the “vices” to which he is alerting Ghaniana journalists. There are hints of those vices in his reference to Anas’s “affluent lifestyle, “businesses owned”, and whether he is “unblemished. These are not exactly charitable perceptions about a fellow muslim. A celebrity journalist like Anas who is invited literally everyday to work or give a talk across the world is not expected to be poor, is he?
Again, I will urge Lamptey who is fighting for the honour of a muslim brother to rather tell Nyantakyi the hard truth that he has disappointed the muslim ummah. If Nyantakyi admits his fault, then Lamptey should console him and support him to overcome the trauma and to become a better person.
Let us help each other in righteousness and piety but not in sin and transgression – Quran 5:2
