By Kelvin Adegbenga
There’s a difference between journalism and conjecture dressed up as fact. Unfortunately, recent reports by Premium Times on the supposed “removal” of former Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, fall squarely into the latter category, misleading, speculative, and frankly, mischievous.
Let’s be clear from the outset: there exists no forum, formal or informal, where former IGP Egbetokun opposed state policing in a manner being insinuated. The narrative being peddled is not only inaccurate but appears deliberately crafted to soil the reputation of a man whose service record remains commendable. It is malicious storytelling, not responsible reporting.
The attempt to attribute certain controversial views on state police to the former IGP is particularly egregious. This is despite the explicit clarification by Ben Okolo, an Assistant Inspector-General of Police, who categorically stated:
“My expression on state police at the session held at Abuja Continental Hotel on 22nd April 2024 is my personal opinion to stimulate the discourse. They are not the views of the Inspector-General of Police or the Nigeria Police Force.”
What more clarification does responsible journalism require? Yet, Premium Times chose to ignore this clear disclaimer, opting instead to push a false equivalence. This is not just an oversight, it is a journalistic goof of significant proportion. Their so-called “sources” are, at best, unreliable, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.
On the issue of the presidential directive regarding the withdrawal of police personnel from VIP protection, the facts are again glaringly at odds with Premium Times’ narrative. Former IGP Egbetokun did not resist the directive, he complied fully and transparently.
In fact, he confirmed that no fewer than 11,566 police personnel were recalled in line with the directive of Bola Tinubu. He further disclosed that the redeployment of these officers to underserved communities had already commenced, reinforcing the strategic intent behind the decision.
He described the directive as a deliberate realignment of national policing priorities, one aimed at strengthening grassroots security rather than privileging elite protection. This is not defiance; it is disciplined leadership. Once again, Premium Times got it wrong.
It is also worth noting that operational structures within the Force were aligned to ensure seamless implementation. The Special Protection Unit (SPU), which oversees officers attached to VIPs, was under competent supervision, including figures like the current acting IGP, Olatunji Disu. This further underscores the institutional coherence with which the directive was executed.
On the matter of the so-called blacklist by International Press Institute (IPI) Nigeria, the narrative has again been distorted. Many cases cited involve petitions from private individuals invoking the Cybercrime Act, legal provisions available to all Nigerians seeking redress. These petitions are investigated in accordance with due process.
What is troubling, however, is the tendency of IPI to adopt one-sided interpretations without fully engaging the mechanisms of accountability within the Police. In one notable instance, upon notification by the IPI President, former IGP Egbetokun ordered the immediate release of the affected journalist and directed the Force Monitoring Unit to investigate the officers involved.
Yet, despite this responsiveness, the IPI reportedly failed to honor invitations to appear before the Force Monitoring Unit to substantiate their claims. In such circumstances, the Police’s position that the suspension of engagement by IPI was unjustified is both logical and defensible.
Taken together, these facts paint a very different picture from the one Premium Times has attempted to construct. What we are witnessing is not investigative journalism but a pattern of distortion, claims built on weak foundations, amplified without verification.
The conclusion is unavoidable: the reports by Premium Times on this matter are false, baseless, and malicious. They mislead the public, undermine institutional credibility, and do a disservice to the principles of ethical journalism.
If journalism must retain its integrity, then accuracy must never be sacrificed at the altar of sensationalism. Anything less is not just irresponsible, it is dangerous.
Kelvin Adegbenga writes from. Abuja. Email: kelvinadegnenga@yahoo.com
