The reporting of the ongoing case involving Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji by The PUNCH, Tribune Online and Journalist101 raises serious questions about fairness and professional judgment.
On November 4, The PUNCH published Nathaniel Shaibu’s report under the headline, “Ex-minister Nnaji’s certificate forged, NYSC witness tells court.” Tribune Online, under its institutional byline, used the headline, “NYSC disowns certificate linked to ex-Minister Nnanji, cites four defects.” A day earlier, Journalist101, also under an institutional byline, published, “Forgery Trial: NYSC Disowns Nnaji’s Certificate, Uncovers 4 Red Flags.”
Each report recounts allegations made by a prosecution witness. But a witness’s testimony is not a court’s finding. In a criminal trial, evidence is tested, the defence has the right to challenge it, and the court not a headline decides whether an allegation has been proved.
According to the account of yesterday’s proceedings, the NYSC witness was challenged to substantiate the allegation concerning the certificate. He acknowledged that he had not thoroughly investigated the matter before coming to court and that his attention had focused on the letter received from the ICPC. He also admitted that he had not established whether Chief Nnaji had ever been issued an NYSC certificate. The court then directed the NYSC’s lawyer to verify the facts and report back on November 30, 2026.
That development deserves clear and prominent reporting. The PUNCH and Journalist101 reports noted the witness’s admission that he had not checked whether Chief Nnaji had ever been issued a certificate. Yet headlines declaring that the NYSC “disowns” the certificate or that it has been “forged” risk leaving readers with the impression that the court has settled the matter. The phrase “four red flags” can also lead readers to treat disputed testimony as a conclusion.
Nathaniel Shaibu and the editors who approved The PUNCH headline should reflect on the weight those words carry. The editorial teams at Tribune Online and Journalist101 should do the same. The cited reports identify Shaibu as the PUNCH reporter; the other two use their publication names as bylines. Where an individual reporter or editor is not named, editorial responsibility still rests with the newsrooms that publish and authorize the headlines.
The concern is heightened by reports that media aides to Governor Peter Mbah, Chief Nnaji’s political opponent, have also circulated accounts of the proceedings that appear even more damaging and one-sided. This naturally raises questions about how these narratives are being amplified and whether some political actors are seeking to shape public opinion through selective accounts of an ongoing trial. No journalist should allow political interests to use their platform to present contested claims as established facts. In a politically charged season, journalists must verify what they publish, distinguish evidence from allegation, and be especially careful not to become instruments in anyone’s political contest.
This is not an objection to reporting court proceedings. The public has a legitimate interest in open justice, and journalists have every right to report what witnesses say in court. The obligation is to make the status of the evidence plain: a prosecution witness made an allegation; the defence challenged it; the court has not yet decided it.
The Nigeria Union of Journalists’ Code of Ethics calls for factual, accurate, balanced and fair reporting; recognizes the right of reply; and urges journalists to separate fact from conjecture and comment. Section 36 of the Constitution protects the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. Chief Nnaji has pleaded not guilty.
We urge Nathaniel Shaibu, the editors of The PUNCH, and the editorial teams at Tribune Online and Journalist101 to attribute contested claims to their source, include material responses from the defence, and state clearly what the court has and has not decided. If a headline has created a misleading impression, the responsible response is to correct it with comparable prominence.
A criminal allegation can be newsworthy without being treated as proven. The media should inform the public, not invite it to deliver judgment before the court has heard the case.
Journalists report. Prosecutors prosecute. Judges decide.
