The Kano State Government has introduced a set of far-reaching media regulations that many civil society organisations and political observers have condemned as a threat to freedom of expression and democratic participation.
The new directives, which emerged from a quarterly policy meeting led by the Ministry of Information and Internal Affairs, have sparked significant controversy. A formal statement released by Sani Abba Yola, the ministry’s Director of Special Duties, confirmed the resolutions, which aim to tighten government control over media broadcasts and commentary in the state.
During the meeting, Kano State Commissioner for Information, Comrade Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, justified the initiative as a necessary step to “safeguard Kano’s cultural and moral integrity.” He said the government’s goal is not to silence dissenting voices but to foster responsible communication aligned with the state’s societal values.
Waiya, addressing media executives in attendance, applauded their efforts in limiting what he termed “unethical content” and praised the perceived decline in abusive language on public platforms. He stressed that the new rules are meant to reinforce ethical journalism, build mutual respect between the media and government, and promote collaborative engagement.
Controversial Measures and Restrictions
Despite the government’s assurances, the measures have raised alarm among journalists, activists, and political commentators. Many view the regulations as subtle attempts to curtail political expression and silence opposition voices under the pretense of preserving moral standards.
One of the most contested provisions requires all guests appearing on radio and television shows to sign a formal agreement promising not to make statements deemed offensive, abusive, or defamatory to Kano’s cultural values. Additionally, the rules ban all live political programmes from airing on any media outlet in the state.
Further restrictions prohibit presenters from posing questions or making gestures that could be interpreted as provocative or harmful to the state’s image. These clauses, critics argue, give authorities overly broad discretion to define what constitutes an offense—effectively muzzling meaningful public debate and critical journalism.
Government’s Push for “Responsible Communication”
In defense of the policy, the Kano State Government disclosed that it has launched a sensitisation campaign targeting political broadcasters, media commentators, and religious leaders. The campaign aims to promote what officials describe as “responsible communication,” a concept critics believe is being used to enforce political conformity.
While the state government insists that the regulations are motivated by a desire to uphold social cohesion and cultural norms, detractors argue that such constraints undermine the watchdog function of the press and violate democratic principles. They warn that policies like these erode the public’s right to access diverse opinions and weaken the media’s ability to hold public officials accountable.
A Growing Trend of Media Control?
The backlash in Kano reflects growing concerns nationwide over attempts by state actors to influence or suppress independent media. Observers say that policies veiled in cultural preservation or morality are increasingly being used as tools for political control.
As civil society groups continue to push back against the regulations, legal and media experts are calling for a broader national conversation about press freedom, government accountability, and the delicate balance between cultural values and democratic rights.
For now, the full implementation of these rules remains closely watched, as stakeholders monitor how they will affect public discourse and the operating environment for journalists across Kano State.
