There are moments when a criminal incident becomes more than a criminal incident. It becomes a test of the institutions, values and professional standards by which a society distinguishes truth from rumour, allegation from fact, and justice from trial by public opinion.
The reported attempted kidnapping of the wives of the incumbent and immediate-past Bishops of the Anglican Diocese of Jos is one such moment.
According to the August 11, 2026 statement issued by the Anglican Diocese of Jos, the attempted kidnapping was real and security agencies intervened. The Diocese also acknowledged that one of the suspects had previously worked in the Diocese but was dismissed in 2022.
That clarification is important.
The Diocese emphatically states that the individual was not reinstated by the present Bishop, is not presently a clergyman under the employment, authority or jurisdiction of the Diocese, and has no current working relationship with it.
These distinctions matter because public discourse has an unfortunate tendency to transform historical association into present responsibility.
A person who once worked for an institution does not automatically remain an agent, representative or member of that institution forever.
More importantly, the alleged criminal conduct of an individual cannot, without evidence establishing institutional involvement, be attributed to the organisation with which that individual was once associated.
But there is another issue that deserves equal attention: the reported use and circulation of the photograph of the incumbent Bishop, Rt. Rev. Prof. Ephraim J. Gongden, in connection with the alleged kidnapping story.
If an innocent person’s photograph is published beside a criminal allegation in a manner that reasonably suggests that the person is the suspect, that is not merely poor journalism. It can cause serious reputational damage and mislead the public.
A photograph is not an innocent ornament to a news story.
In the digital age, many people do not read beyond the headline or examine the details of a report. They see the photograph, read a few words and form an immediate conclusion. Within minutes, the material may have travelled across WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, X, blogs and other platforms.
By the time the truth catches up with the false impression, the damage may already be irreversible.
But this is precisely where we must resist another temptation: assuming that every inaccurate report is necessarily the product of a deliberate conspiracy.
The Diocese describes the circulation of the Bishop’s photograph as deliberate blackmail, wickedness, misrepresentation and an act of hatred. Those are serious allegations about motive.
They may ultimately prove to be correct.
But motive is a matter that should itself be established by evidence.
There is an important difference between saying “this report is false or misleading” and saying “the people responsible deliberately set out to blackmail the Bishop.”
The first may be demonstrated by comparing the publication with the facts. The second requires evidence of intention.
That distinction is fundamental to responsible public commentary.
The presumption of innocence must apply to everyone
There is another principle that should not be lost in the emotional atmosphere surrounding this incident.
The person arrested remains a suspect, not a convicted criminal.
This is not an attempt to minimise the seriousness of the allegations. An alleged attempt to kidnap anyone—particularly the wives of senior religious leaders—is a grave matter that deserves a thorough and professional investigation.
But the seriousness of an allegation does not eliminate the presumption of innocence.
The same society that demands justice for victims must also demand due process for suspects.
The police must investigate.
The prosecution must prove its case if charges are brought.
And ultimately, a court must determine guilt or innocence.
Social media cannot substitute for any of these.
Former association is not present affiliation
The Jos case also presents an important lesson for journalists.
There is nothing inherently wrong with reporting that an accused or suspected person previously worked for a particular organisation if that fact is relevant to understanding the story.
What is problematic is allowing the description to create a materially false impression.
There is a world of difference between:
“A former employee of the Anglican Diocese of Jos was arrested in connection with an alleged kidnapping plot,”
and:
“An Anglican Diocese of Jos clergyman was arrested for plotting to kidnap the Bishops’ wives.”
The second formulation may cause the reader to understand that the individual is presently an authorised representative of the Diocese.
That is why precision in language matters.
Journalism is not merely about having information. It is about presenting information in a manner that does not distort its meaning.
The victim must not become the accused.
There is also a troubling phenomenon emerging from the incident: the possibility that those who were targeted by the alleged criminal act can themselves become objects of suspicion, ridicule or public condemnation because of misinformation surrounding the event.
This is particularly dangerous in an era where a misleading headline can travel faster than a correction.
A victim should not have to defend himself or herself against a crime that was committed—or allegedly attempted—against them.
Neither should an institution have to prove its innocence merely because someone once associated with it is alleged to have committed a crime years after leaving its employment.
The proper question is not:
“Where did this person once work?”
The proper questions are:
What happened? Who is alleged to have done it? What evidence exists? What is the person’s current relationship with the institution? And what does the investigation establish?
Those are the questions that responsible journalism should answer.
Social media has changed the meaning of “publication”.
In the past, an inaccurate newspaper report might reach thousands of people.
Today, a misleading WhatsApp post can reach thousands within minutes and potentially millions before anyone has an opportunity to correct it.
This has placed an enormous responsibility on journalists, bloggers, influencers and ordinary social-media users.
The phrase “I only forwarded it” is becoming an increasingly dangerous excuse.
Before forwarding a serious allegation, one should ask:
Who originally published it?
Is the source identifiable?
Has the information been independently verified?
Does the photograph actually belong to the person named in the story?
Does the headline accurately reflect the body of the report?
Could this publication unfairly damage someone’s reputation?i
These are not unnecessary questions. They are the minimum requirements of responsible citizenship in the digital age.
The media must investigate, not convict.
There is an understandable public appetite for information whenever a serious crime is alleged.
But journalism has a higher responsibility than satisfying public curiosity.
The journalist’s job is to investigate, verify and inform—not to convict.
The blogger’s responsibility is not lower simply because he or she operates outside a traditional newsroom.
And the ordinary social-media user who knowingly republishes a false allegation cannot escape responsibility simply because the original material came from someone else.
Freedom of expression is fundamental.
But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences for demonstrably false and defamatory publications.
The Diocese also has a legitimate responsibility
The Anglican Diocese of Jos is entitled to protect its institutional reputation.
The Bishop is entitled to demand that his photograph not be falsely associated with an alleged criminal offence.
The families allegedly targeted are entitled to security and privacy.
And the public is entitled to accurate information.
None of these rights is incompatible with the others.
Indeed, the proper response is greater transparency, not less.
The Diocese should continue to cooperate with the security agencies and provide whatever information it legitimately possesses.
The security agencies should conduct an impartial investigation, irrespective of the religious status, former employment or social standing of anyone involved.
The media should report developments accurately.
And the public should resist the temptation to turn an unfolding investigation into a social-media trial.
The lesson goes beyond Jos
The Jos incident should therefore not become another occasion for Nigerians to choose sides according to religious affiliation, institutional loyalty or personal prejudice.
It should become an opportunity to reaffirm some basic principles.
Crime must be investigated.
Victims must be protected.
Suspects must receive due process.
Institutions must not be falsely implicated.
Photographs must not be used deceptively.
Journalists must verify before publishing.
Bloggers must distinguish allegation from established fact.
And social-media users must stop treating forwarding as an excuse for irresponsibility.
There is a deeper danger here.
When false information becomes normalised, society eventually loses the ability to distinguish between truth and propaganda. When every allegation becomes a conviction, justice becomes mob sentiment. And when every former employee becomes a permanent representative of his former institution, accountability becomes irrational.
The Jos case therefore deserves more than outrage.
It deserves accuracy.
It deserves restraint.
It deserves investigation.
And above all, it deserves truth.
The words attributed to the Apostle Peter are particularly appropriate in circumstances where emotions can easily overwhelm reason:
“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 1 Peter 2:23
That is not a call for silence in the face of falsehood.
It is a reminder that truth does not need exaggeration to prevail.
In Jos, as everywhere else in Nigeria, let the facts be established, let the innocent be protected, let the guilty if guilt is proved face the law, and let neither the Church, the media nor social media become a substitute for justice.
Frank Odion Apokwu is a Public Affairs Analyst Social Commentator Democratic Reforms and Inclusive Development Advocate. He writes from Asaba
