Foreign media eye Nigeria Presidential race.

Earlier in the year, a South-African journalist, Geoffrey York, lashed out at the Federal Government for refusing himself and 40 other foreign journalists visas to cover the presidential elections earlier scheduled for February 14.

York, who reports for The Globe, took to Twitter to vent his spleen on the alleged visa denial, describing it as “the latest Nigerian scandal.”

“Nigeria allowed many foreign ‘journos’ to cover the ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ campaign last year; yet now it’s blocking at least 40 from covering elections,” he had tweeted.

York’s allegations became the subject of a raging online debate, grabbing the headlines in foreign media. York had given the impression that the Federal Government was planning to sideline foreign media because it (FG) had a hidden agenda. According to his tweets, the Federal Government was afraid of foreign media.

York’s allegation, although dismissed by the Nigerian embassy, was one of many reactions from some foreign media who have been closely monitoring preparations for the elections, revealing their perspectives on the credibility of the major presidential candidates and predicting what may be the result of the polls.

Aside repeatedly cautioning the country’s politicians against violence and human rights abuses, the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, President Goodluck Jonathan and his All Progressives Congress counterpart, Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) have received notable mentions from foreign media. The two major candidates continue to grab the headlines in the editorials of these foreign newspapers mostly for bad reasons. The views of these newspapers, as recorded in the past, may be the results of the presidential elections scheduled to hold in the next 31 days.

In its widely read editorial of January 18, 2015, The Observer, which prides itself as the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, did not spare Jonathan the rod over what it termed the lack of the right tactics to contain insurgency in the North-East.

The British newspaper had criticised Jonathan for remaining silent for many days after the Baga killings, but immediately sent his condolences to France following the Charlie Hebdo attacks. According to The Observer, as Africa’s biggest economy and largest standing Army, Nigeria does not lack the means to end the war but effective political and military leadership.

The paper wrote, “Jonathan, making a brief tour of the (Borno) state capital, Maiduguri, congratulated the Army on its work, notwithstanding, its abject failure to prevent the massacre. What Jonathan did not say was how he plans to break Boko Haram’s grip on 20,000sq km of territory spanning three northeastern states or bring an end to the plague of murderous atrocities, suicide bombings, schoolgirl kidnappings and rapes it has unleashed. It sometimes seems he is trying to ignore a problem for which he has no answers.”

But the editorial seems to be soft on Buhari, saying, “Buhari earned a reputation for strong leadership and intolerance of corruption during his brief period in power in 1983-1985.”

Washington Post, an American daily in its January 6 editorial, entitled “Nigeria’s election will be a test of peace and power,” predicted that   Nigeria has “a recipe for an explosive general-election season.”

Although the paper in the seven-paragraph article did not endorse Buhari or Jonathan, it took a swipe at the President by warning him to avoid misusing the military and police before, during and after the election.

The paper exhorted, “The United States and other Western governments ought to press Mr. Jonathan as well as his opponent to respect the rule of law. The government must prioritise peace, not power, if Nigeria is to weather this particularly dangerous stress test.”

However, on Friday, January 16, 2015, The Guardian of London brought a fresh perspective to the campaigns. The United Kingdom paper, obviously trying to be objective, fired a salvo at Buhari and Jonathan, describing them as “flawed leaders.”

“President Goodluck Jonathan stands accused of inertness and procrastination in dealing with Boko Haram, and of ineffective performance in office generally. General Muhammadu Buhari, his rival, has a reputation as one of the more honest and well-intentioned of the country’s military rulers, but not as one of the most astute,” the paper said in the editorial.

The Guardian seemed to be reinforcing concerns raised back home by Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, who had described both Jonathan and Buhari as “problematic” choices for the country.

Soyinka had described the presidential election as a dilemma for Nigerian voters. The renowned playwright had said that while Buhari is haunted by his past, Jonathan is haunted by the present.

The most memorable of the editorials was that of the influential UK-based magazine, The Economist. The magazine surprised Western and Nigerian audiences when it said in its February editorial that Buhari was more competent than Jonathan. The endorsement of Buhari by the magazine lifted the hearts of the APC who took to the social media to promote the auspicious news, causing ripples of reactions at home and abroad.

The highly respected magazine in its editorial entitled, ‘Former dictator is a better choice than a failed president,’ said Nigeria was unfortunate to have both Buhari and Jonathan vying for the Presidency. It, however, said that out of the two, Buhari was a better candidate.

It said, “Start with Mr. Jonathan, whose party has run the country since 1999 and who stumbled into the Presidency on the death of his predecessor in 2010, the PDP’s reign has been a sorry one. Mr. Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. When the governor of the central bank reported that $20bn had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked.

“He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling insecurity, and even less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after the attack on Charlie Hedbo, Mr. Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking up about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his compatriots.”

The magazine, despite its open endorsement of Buhari, maintained that the former military Head of State had “blood on his hands.”

It recalled that Buhari was guilty of human rights abuse and did not manage the economy properly when he ruled Nigeria between December 1983 and August 1985. It added, “Buhari is a sandal-wearing ascetic with a record of fighting corruption. Few nowadays question his commitment to democracy or expect him to turn autocratic: he has repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost. He would probably do a better job of running the country, and in particular of tackling Boko Haram. As a northerner and Muslim, he will have greater legitimacy among villagers whose help he will need to isolate the insurgents. As a military man, he is more likely to win the respect of a demoralised army.

“We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one, we would with a heavy heart choose Buhari. If Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.”

This endorsement did not go down well with the Presidency. It swiftly reacted to the news, faulting The Economist for saying that Buhari was more competent than Jonathan. The President’s spokesperson, Dr. Rueben Abati, had described the magazine’s view of the President as “baseless, jaundiced and rather malicious.”

He said contrary to the magazine’s claims, Jonathan retains the trust and confidence of majority of Nigerians and that the outcome of the presidential election would justify this.

He said, “We are sure that many Nigerians and other readers of the usually urbane, thoughtful and well-reasoned editorial opinions of The Economist will be shocked that the magazine has taken the very ill-considered decision to throw its weight behind a candidate who, as a former military dictator, curtailed freedom of speech, ordered the kidnapping of opponents and jailing of journalists, and is accused of incitement to violence and grave human rights violations in Nigeria’s current democratic dispensation.”

Before the dust raised by The Economist’s endorsement of Buhari settled, the New York Times, launched a scathing criticism of Jonathan and Buhari, describing them as “Nigeria’s miserable choices” in its editorial of February 16.

The 164-year-old newspaper said that Jonathan had become so unpopular that Nigerians were not afraid of the idea of a former military dictator returning as President. The newspaper stated that Jonathan appeared to be afraid of the increasing popularity of Buhari, who “most Nigerians would likely vote for.” It said, “It appears more likely that Mr. Jonathan grew alarmed by the surging appeal of Muhammadu Buhari, a former military ruler, who has vowed to crack down on Boko Haram. By dragging out the race, Jonathan stands to deplete his rival’s campaign coffers while he continues to use state funds and institutions to bankroll his own.”

While both candidates have received kudos and knocks from foreign media, not a few analysts have described the voices of the foreign media as a likely reflection of Nigerians’ choice.

Back home, observers are wondering whether the President is strong enough to obtain at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in at least 24 of Nigeria’s 36 states, which is a criterion the winner must fulfill to be declared President. No doubt, Buhari enjoys a massive support in the northern regions and has behind him the majority of the political leadership in the South-West but his acceptability in the South-East is not outstanding. Indeed, analysts are also worried that he may fail to hit 25 per cent of total votes cast in the South-East and may not meet the mark. With the control of Rivers State in the hands of the APC, the opposition party is expected to get reasonable votes in the Governor Rotimi Amaechi-led state.

In less than 32 days, it would be seen whether or not the predictions of foreign media would come to pass.