PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Legal Department
BBC
Room BC2 A3
Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TP

By Email Only: nick.wilcox@bbc.co.uk;ross.allan@bbc.co.uk;

denise.martin@bbc.co.uk; tarik.kafala@bbc.co.uk

Our Ref: N0139/001/TR/NH/CXM/RV

20 October 2021

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Dear Sir / Madam,

Our client: Peter Nkanga

We act for Peter Nkanga, a journalist based in Abuja, Nigeria, on a pro bono basis. We
write with reference to our client’s complaint to the BBC dated 5 July 2021 and the email in
response from Mr Tarik Kafala to our client dated 22 July 2021 at 4:32pm.

1. Background

Pre-broadcast

1.1. In December 2020, our client was approached by Seamus Mirodan, Executive
Producer, in relation to a documentary that was subsequently broadcast by BBC
Africa Eye on 17 May 2021 called “Nigeria’s Ordinary President” (the
 “Documentary”). This remains accessible on YouTube1 and on the BBC Africa
Eye website2.

1.2. The subject of the Documentary is the popular Nigerian radio personality, Ahmad
Isah. Mr Isah is an extremely influential figure in Nigeria and has an almost cult-
like following (hence the BBC’s choice of title for the Documentary). He is known
for delivering populist justice on his radio and TV show “Brekete Family”. Our
client was the chief reporter and presenter of the Documentary.

1.3. The Documentary includes footage of Mr Isah slapping a woman accused of

burning her niece’s hair (the “Scene”). The Scene is controversial by any
standards but is even more controversial in Nigeria, given both the cultural
differences and the huge popularity of Mr Isah. The Scene was also included
within the first 30 seconds of the promotional Instagram and Facebook trailer for
the Documentary (the “Trailer”)3.

1.4. Prior to the Documentary’s release, our client expressed his concerns in phone
conversations in April and May 2021 to the following BBC team members: Karim
Shah, who filmed, directed and produced the BBC Documentary, and Tom
Watson, BBC Africa Eye Executive Producer, regarding the inclusion of the Scene.
Our client considered that the Scene would provoke Mr Isah’s followers over and
above the rest of the Documentary’s content and that the inclusion of the Scene
would inevitably lead to backlash from them, against those involved in making the
Documentary.

Post-broadcast

1.5. On 19 May 2021, Mr Isah retorted by making false allegations about our client on
his radio show, which were broadcast to his millions of daily listeners. These
included false claims that the BBC and our client were plotting to kill Mr Isah and
false allegations against our client’s wife.

1.6. The broadcast caused an immediate backlash against our client and the BBC by Mr
Isah’s followers on social media. The same day, our client started to receive
threatening text messages, WhatsApp messages and phone calls. He informed the

1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=qN5sINAjyYM
2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09hmjgh
3
https://www.instagram.com/p/CO91qyulR9x/
 BBC team of these via the WhatsApp group named “BBC AE-Comms – NG Ordi
Presid” and passed these threats on to the team contemporaneously.

1.7. Our client has two mobile phone numbers. On 20 May 2021, one of these numbers
was broadcast live on Mr Isah’s radio show. Our client informed the “BBC AE-
Comms – NG Ordi Presid” WhatsApp group on 20 May 2021.

1.8. Our client’s second number was released by Mr Isah on his radio show on 21 May
2021. Such action was described at the time by Chris Ewokor at the BBC as
“inciting the public to harass the crew”. The BBC advised our client to obtain a new
phone number and to deactivate his old number.

1.9. On 21 May 2021, our client informed the “BBC AE-Comms – NG Ordi Presid” group
and individual members of the “BBC Ord Prez HR” group that he had started to
receive hundreds of threatening calls and harassing messages on his second
mobile number and flagged that he had been threatened by individuals who
claimed to know where he lives. Our client transmitted the information regarding
these threats to the BBC in the form of WhatsApp messages, voice notes and
phone numbers. He also requested that the BBC try to assess whether his phone
had been compromised. At 4:32pm on this date, our client informed the BBC that
his location had indeed been compromised and that he needed to quickly flee and
would be turning his phone off until it was safe to contact the BBC team again.

1.10. Our client immediately fled his location, given the high threat level against him.
Since the Documentary’s broadcast, he has remained in hiding out of genuine fear
of a risk to his life. Our client has been unable to continue his work as a journalist
and reporter. Because he remains in hiding, he has been forced to cancel planned
work commitments. As a result, he continues to incur debt, and is unable to pay
outgoings such as school fees for his child and rent on his family home.

1.11. Since the Documentary was broadcast over four months ago, our client continues
to be harassed online and is still receiving threats while in hiding. On a daily basis,
our client continues to receive unsolicited WhatsApp and spam messages from
numbers not among his contacts. This is the direct result of his two numbers
having been broadcast on live radio. Our client was still receiving direct threats
which specifically mentioned Ahmad Isah as recently as 25 August 2021, over
three months since the Documentary was released.
 1.12. We understand that there is an open investigation by the Nigerian Police into the
broadcast of the false allegations against our client and the BBC, the release of our
client’s phone numbers on live radio and the threats and harassment which
ensued following the broadcast; and that Nigeria’s media regulator discontinued
the broadcast of Mr Isah’s radio show for a period of 30 days.

1.13. Despite this, the threat level to our client continues to remain high. Based on the
reaction triggered in Nigeria following the broadcast, it is likely that once the
Police investigation is completed or reaches a more critical juncture, the threat
level to our client is likely to increase further.

2. Obligations under the BBC Editorial Guidelines – Fairness to Contributors and

Consent

Section 6.1 “The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to our audiences, fair to our
contributors and potential contributors, fair to sources and fair to those our output is
about. Our content should be based on respect, openness and straight dealing. We also
have an obligation under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code to ‘avoid unjust or unfair
treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes’”.4

Section 6.3.1 “We should treat our contributors honestly and with respect.”

2.1. As you are aware, the BBC owes a duty of care to contributors as per the BBC
Editorial Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) and is obligated under both the
Guidelines and the Ofcom Code to avoid the unjust or unfair treatment of
individuals in BBC programmes.

2.2. The BBC have treated our client unfairly with their lack of empathy and reasoning
towards our client. It is apparent that the BBC did not take our client’s concerns
seriously or consider them a priority and failed in its duty to treat our client fairly
and with respect. As a direct consequence of the broadcast of the Documentary,
our client has been left in an unjust and precarious position, isolated from his
family for over four months, without financial resources or the ability to work,
fearful for his life and unable to continue to live a normal life as he had done pre-
broadcast.

4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/fairness/
 2.3. The BBC have ultimately failed to provide our client with the appropriate level of
due care owed to him. We have detailed this failure in full below in accordance
with the specific breaches by the BBC of the Guidelines.

3. Breach of section 6.3.18

3.1. “We should not put the health and safety of contributors or any other participants at
any significant risk.”

3.2. Our client first raised concerns in WhatsApp phone conversations with the BBC as
early as April 2021 with Karim Shah, Producer and Director of the Documentary,
and on the 12 and 13 May 2021 with Tom Watson, BBC Africa Eye Executive
Producer, specifically that the Documentary (and in particular the inclusion of the
Scene) would likely provoke such a reaction among Mr Isah’s followers that this
could put the personal safety of those involved in the Documentary at direct risk.

3.3. Despite this, the BBC proceeded with the broadcast, including the Scene in both
the Documentary and the Trailer, with no regard for the concerns our client raised
and without any proper risk assessment, planning or aftercare plan (which in itself
is a further breach of the Guidelines, see further paragraph 7.6 below).

3.4. It was self-evident that the inclusion of a Scene of such a nature, broadcast to such
an audience, was likely to provoke Mr Isah’s followers. The BBC was on notice that
such provocation would likely lead to violence, or threats of violence, being made
against those involved in the Documentary, as a result of our client’s
communications. Accordingly, it was entirely foreseeable that the broadcast of the
Documentary and the Trailer in disregard of our client’s concerns was likely to put
the health and safety of the Documentary’s contributors at significant risk.

3.5. Immediately after the broadcast of the Documentary and the subsequent Isah
radio broadcast, Chris Ewokor at the BBC sent a WhatsApp to our client on 21 May
2021, identifying this risk and highlighting the severity of the threats and the harm
these could cause our client, stating that:

“The threats could wear him down psychologically and it could lead to hysteria.”

3.6. Mr Ewokor’s prediction has materialised. One of the consequences of the

broadcast of the Documentary has been that our client has since suffered from
 serious health issues, which were brought on due to the stress and anxiety he
endured and continues to endure.

3.7. Since the broadcast of the Documentary on 17 May 2021, our client has been
suffering from regular panic attacks, brought on by anxiety and his fear of the
level of threats and the helplessness he feels. He is also suffering from migraines.

3.8. This culminated in August 2021 in our client suffering a transient ischemic attack,
which is more commonly known as a “mini stroke”. He has been advised that he
must be extremely careful of his health and stress-levels going forward, as he is
now deemed at increased risk of suffering from a stroke. This is as a direct result
of the broadcast and the events that ensued following the BBC’s failure to take
proper care of him or respond properly to the issues he raised.

3.9. By way of just two such examples, on 19 June 2021 and on 5 October 2021 our
client informed the BBC that he had been ill via WhatsApp messages to Marc
Perkins. This was not acknowledged by the BBC, nor was any assistance, advice or
support offered to him regarding possible treatment for these serious health
issues.

4. Breach of section 6.3.19

4.1. “We owe due care to our contributors and potential contributors, as well as to our
sources who may be caused harm or distress as a result of their contribution to our
output.”

4.2. The BBC owes a duty of care to all contributors. In order to supply a contributor
with the appropriate level of care, the Guidelines stipulate that the BBC must judge
each individual case, the nature and degree of their involvement and their safety
risks.

4.3. There is no doubt that our client is a contributor for these purposes and that he is
owed a duty of care by the BBC in respect of his health and personal safety.

4.4. Such a duty was also affirmed to our client by the BBC Africa Eye Editor, Marc
Perkins, in a WhatsApp message dated 23 June 2021 to our client which stated,
“we have a duty of care to you which we will continue to follow”.
 4.5. It is clear that this duty of care owed to him has indeed been breached by the
BBC, as set out further below.

5. Breach of section 6.3.20

5.1. “Before asking contributors to take part in activities which may expose them to
significant risk, we must follow the appropriate risk assessment procedure. Within the
BBC, advice is available from BBC Safety. Independent production companies are
responsible for their own risk assessment. Where appropriate, we may ask
contributors to take fitness tests and undergo psychological checks. Contributors must
consent to those steps we consider appropriate and any risks must be set out in
writing.”

5.2. While the independent production company involved in the Documentary, Vox
Barbarae Ltd, ought to have conducted its own risk assessment, the BBC also
should have completed its own assessment in this instance. Clearly, the BBC was
under a duty to carry out such an assessment in the circumstances here, in
particular given that (i) the Documentary was filmed in Nigeria, a country with a
complex political landscape, as well as radicalism, extremism and violence; and
(ii) the BBC was on notice of the widespread cult-like popularity and influence held
by the subject of the Documentary there.

5.3. Our client is Nigerian, lives in Nigeria and was clearly in a better position to
understand how the inclusion of the Scene was likely to be received by his own
people than the BBC. Our client raised concerns about the consequences the
inclusion of the Scene would have in the Documentary and Trailer, as his view was
that the inclusion of the Scene significantly increased the risk level to the
Documentary’s contributors, including his own. These concerns were raised in
April 2021 with Karim Shah, following our client’s first post-production viewing of
the Scene. Following this, our client expressed his concerns via a WhatsApp call
with Tom Watson on 12 May 2021 and again on 13 May 2021 to both Tom Watson
and Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

5.4. Following the release of the film, on 28 May 2021, our client sought confirmation
from Karim Shah in a private WhatsApp message, as to how the decision was
reached by the BBC to include the Scene in the Documentary and expressed
concern that this decision was made without involving our client in the editorial
 process. Karim confirmed that the decision to include the Scene was a
“unanimous” one taken with the BBC.

5.5. Despite this, the BBC ignored his concerns and included the Scene in full in the
Documentary and within the first 30 seconds of the Trailer, which was promoted
to over 7 million followers on the BBC News Africa Facebook page and to 788,000
followers on the BBC News Africa Instagram page.

5.6. Moreover, despite our client having raised these concerns, it does not appear that
prior to the broadcast the BBC carried out any risk assessment at all or plan in any
way to manage the post-broadcast risk that our client had identified and alerted to
the BBC. If such an assessment was indeed carried out by the BBC, our client did
not receive a copy of this nor was he made aware of the findings of this. Please
therefore confirm whether a risk assessment was carried out by the BBC prior to
the broadcast of the Documentary. If so, please provide a full copy. If not, please
explain why this was not done.

5.7. We note that the duty to conduct a risk assessment prior to broadcast and to
consider whether any additional measures are required to be put in place as a
result is also set out in the BBC “Guidance: Working with contributors including
vulnerable contributors or contributors at risk of vulnerability” (the “Contributor
Guidance”):

“We should consider whether a contributor/contestant might be regarded as being at

risk of significant harm as a result of taking part in BBC content. We should conduct a
“contributor due care” risk assessment to identify any risk of significant harm to the
contributor, unless it is justified in the public interest not to do so.”

“Where risks to a contributor/contestant have been identified in relation to their

contribution to BBC content, they should be provided with relevant information about
those risks and any steps that will be taken to mitigate them. It is helpful to keep
written records of discussions with contributors before filming, in addition to
informed consent in writing. It may also be helpful for contributors to be provided
with information on any areas of questioning, in writing, where practical.

“It is good practice to make and retain records, contemporaneous notes and/or any
other documentation. This can assist in demonstrating what information and support
was offered and provided to a contributor/contestant during productions. The record
 of mitigations for risk of significant harm should be held by productions and shared
with the broadcaster – details may change before and during production depending on
circumstances.”

5.8. Given that the BBC does not appear to have carried out any pre-broadcast risk
assessment, or if it did, then this does not appear to have been documented or
shared with our client to his knowledge, this amounts to a clear breach of the
duties owed by the BBC to our client in this regard.

5.9. We understand that the only support arranged in advance of the broadcast was a
meeting held by phone on 13 May 2021 with our client, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and
Tom Watson. The purpose of this call was to discuss our client’s concerns
regarding the risks our client may face following, and as a result of, the Broadcast,
and the actions which would also be taken to protect his safety and well-being. We
understand that our client also had spoken with Tom Watson on 12 May 2021 but
felt afterwards that his concerns had not been addressed nor did he feel reassured
and supported.

5.10. At the 13 May 2021 meeting, we understand that neither Mr Watson nor Mr
Aremeyaw Anas provided a plan or clear strategy to deal with the possible
repercussions in Nigeria once the Documentary had been broadcast. We are
instructed that, at this meeting, both Mr Watson and Mr Aremeyaw Anas said that
they had never experienced a situation during their careers, where the risks to the
journalist emanated from the public as opposed to more usual sources of attacks,
such as armed groups or State authorities. It would appear that both Mr Watson
and Mr Aremeyaw Anas lacked the requisite skills and experience to properly
assess the risk levels that the Documentary created for the contributors, including
our client.

5.11. The Contributor Guidance also requires the BBC to: “consider the psychological
impact (including psychological assessment and support) for all contributors when the
format/nature of the programme means they’ll be put in highly pressurised or exposed
situations, for example talent searches and reality immersive shows, even though they
may not appear to have pre-existing vulnerabilities.”

5.12. Again, in light of the facts set out above and the concerns our client had
highlighted directly to the BBC prior to the broadcast, it was clear that our client
was being put in an extremely pressured and exposed situation as a result of the
 broadcast of the highly controversial Documentary, in particular as a result of the
inclusion on the Scene. It was self-evidently foreseeable that consideration should
have been given by the BBC to the psychological impact on our client of
proceeding with the broadcast in these circumstances. No such consideration, or
indeed any thought at all, was given to this aspect of production.

5.13. The BBC High Risk team contacted and spoke with our client on 19 May 2021
about the threats he was receiving and to make an assessment on his and his
wife’s security situation. Such an assessment was carried out and our client
provided large amounts of messages that he had received via WhatsApp,
Facebook and Twitter, which are detailed further below. This assessment
ascertained that the security at our client’s accommodation was poor. Although
this was a gated compound, the pedestrian gate was often left open, and the
guard on duty did not frequently stop and check the identity of persons entering
the premises. We also note that whilst an initial call was made by the BBC to our
client’s wife on 21 May 2021, she ultimately did not receive any assistance from the
BBC other than receiving a tracking device.

6. Breach of section 6.3.21 and 6.3.22

6.1. “We must ensure we do not encourage contributors to put themselves at risk or
endanger themselves when gathering material which may be for our use.”

6.2. “We may need to take practical steps to protect international contributors or sources
from repercussions within their own countries, arising from their participation in our
output.

6.3. Our client informed the BBC that his phone number had been released on live
radio as soon as he became aware of this on 20 May 2021 and emphasised that his
situation has reached “red alert”. At this time, rather than being concerned for our
client’s personal safety, the BBC team initially appeared to be more concerned that
our client had stopped a promotional interview halfway through, when he begun
to receive a high amount of threatening calls and texts.

6.4. Such threatening and abusive calls were coming not only from within Abuja, but
also from international numbers, including the USA and the UK. For this reason,
our client suggested that the BBC track his number to ensure his safety and
requested that the BBC consider making evacuation plans for him and his family.
6.5. However, it appears that the BBC did not consider these threats to be sufficiently
serious to act upon, despite several pleas for help from our client. The
correspondence indicates that although the BBC had by this point finally involved
the high-risk team, they sought to draw a distinction between “genuine threats”
and the threats made to Peter, which they characterised as “empty insults”.

6.6. It is not clear on what basis the BBC High Risk team considered they were in a
position to make such an assessment (which is in any event entirely subjective).
Their assessment does not appear in this regard to have been based on any
analysis of the actual facts or threat level faced by Peter. Rather, they appear to
have reached this conclusion based solely on the content of the messages taken at
face value and interpreted through the prism of an external individual, in
disregard of what they had been told by someone with local knowledge and a far
better ability to interpret the threats in their proper context.

6.7. On 21 May 2021, our client’s second mobile number was released. The BBC advised
our client to try to obtain a new mobile number to enable them to communicate
with him. It is most surprising that the BBC expected our client to do this despite
being in hiding and at a time when our client held a legitimate fear of being
recognised in public. While our client made every effort to do so whilst in such a
precarious position, the BBC did not in any way assist our client to safely obtain a
new number. Nor did they provide him with any strategic advice as to how he
could maintain his own personal safety while he tried to do so, other than Tom
Watson advising him to keep a “tight circle of trust” on his new number.

6.8. In light of the security and safety concerns, on the 23 May 2021, the BBC arranged
trackers for both our client and his wife. Our client’s wife was able to activate her
tracker the following day; however, our client informed the BBC on 23 May 2021 at
12:17 that he was unable to activate the tracker due to his email storage being full.
Despite the BBC’s knowledge of this, it did not offer any alternatives, including
providing the tracker in a suitable format that did not require email, which would
have easily been possible. In doing so, the BBC demonstrated a total disregard for
his safety and demonstrated a lack of willingness to put in place adequate and
necessary support measures for our client that were suitable in an evolving
situation and that would undoubtedly help to ensure his safety and give our client
peace of mind.
6.9. On 23 May 2021, Chris Ewokor at the BBC considered the threat level against
Peter’s family to be “seriously under threat” and asked the BBC team that his wife
and child be moved from their home to a safe location, suggesting a hotel in Abuja
for a period of two weeks. Our client had already moved to a location in southern
Nigeria, where he informed the BBC team that he felt “relatively safe, for now”.
The BBC was well aware that our client was by now more concerned for the safety
and welfare of his wife and child.

6.10. While in hiding, our client agreed with the recommendation made by Mr Ewokor
and also requested that the BBC move his wife to a hotel for protection in light of
the level of threats against them. From the outset, our client flagged that his wife
should not use her own ID as part of this process, given the clear risk that she
could be discovered in this way, thereby undermining the entire objective in
moving her out from the family home. Our client’s priority was of course his wife
and child’s safety, and naturally wanted to mitigate any risk that their security
could be compromised. Despite this, the BBC informed our client that it would
not be possible to check his wife into any local hotel using another person’s
details, confirming that she would have to confirm and present her identification
at the hotel. When our client queried this response, Oliver Sparks suggested that
the BBC had contacted a number of hotels and all had the same policy.

6.11. With respect, we find it hard to believe that the BBC could not have found a
solution. It is standard practice in the security industry for individuals at risk to be
checked in to safe accommodation using an alias or, failing that, the booking
being made in someone else’s name. Alternatively, a “safe house” could have
been made available to our client. It is utterly illogical to suggest that the only
solution for someone whose life has been threatened is for that person to check in
to a hotel using their own name, which would enable them to be easily
discovered, thereby jeopardising their safety and defeating the entire purpose of
the proposed relocation. The BBC gave no reason why this could not have been
done here.

6.12. Moreover, the BBC team were undoubtedly aware of the level and seriousness of
the threats to our client. On 27 May 2021, Oliver Sparks, the assigned High-Risk
Advisor to our client admitted in the “BBC High Risk” WhatsApp group that,
further evidence received by our client (which he passed onto the BBC) “changes
things” and “slightly elevates” the risk to him and his family. Despite this, the BBC
did not take any further tangible actions to secure or monitor the safety of our
 client’s wife, while the threat level was escalated. It is apparent that the BBC
either did not believe our client or seriously underestimated the threat level he
and his family faced, despite stating in the risk assessment provided via WhatsApp
on 3 June 2021 that “Given the prevailing levels of violent crime in Nigeria and the
overall poor security situation these threats cannot be dismissed”. Either way, this
amounts to a breach of the Guidelines.

7. Aftercare5

7.1. The Contributor Guidance sets out in detail what is required by the BBC in terms
of aftercare for contributors.

7.2. In particular, this states that “Aftercare is important. Any aftercare needs to be
proportionate to the ongoing risks identified and have clear boundaries and time
frames” (emphasis added).

7.3. “At the outset the need for aftercare for vulnerable contributors and for all
contributors when the format/nature of the programme means they’ll be put in highly
pressurised or exposed situations should be discussed by Production and
Commissioning with input from Editorial Policy and other relevant experts where
necessary.”

7.4. “An agreed plan should be drawn up with an outline of how aftercare will be delivered
and for what period of time it should be available. It should be signed off by
production commissioning and the BBC who may consult Editorial Policy. This
aftercare plan may need to be adjusted if any contributor develops a vulnerability
during the production. A psychological assessment or conversation may be advisable
post-production.”

7.5. It is apparent that the BBC gave no consideration to aftercare, nor did the BBC
draw up an aftercare plan or share this with our client. This amounts to a clear
breach of the duties owed by the BBC to our client in this regard. If an aftercare
plan was prepared, please provide us with a copy, confirm the date on which the
plan was prepared and whether the plan was subsequently revisited following the
broadcast and the threats made against our client.

7.6. Further, despite our client’s evident distress and ill-health, no psychological

5
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/vulnerable-contributors#aftercare
 assessment or support was ever offered to him by the BBC. Again, this is clearly in
breach of the BBC’s aftercare duties.

7.7. “We should be flexible to the type of support a contributor might reasonably require or
request and remain responsive to a contributor’s needs for an appropriate time after
the programme has been broadcast. For high risk content it may be appropriate to
check in on contributors around the time of broadcast.”

7.8. It is self-evident that the BBC failed to be flexible to the type of support our client
reasonably required, given the facts set out at paragraphs 6.7 – 6.12 above.

7.9. Our client did receive a WhatsApp message on 3 June 2021 from Marc Perkins
which purported to contain a post-broadcast ‘risk assessment’. This message was
sent over two weeks since the broadcast and patently does not meet industry
standards or constitute a proper risk assessment for these purposes. The
WhatsApp message is wholly lacking in the usual format one would expect to see
in a risk assessment of this nature. Nor has any formal documentation been
provided to our client.

7.10. No analysis or reasoning whatsoever was provided to explain the conclusion

reached, that the threats faced by our client were not real or immediate. Instead
the ‘risk assessment’ simply makes a bald assertion that this was the case, without
any proper consideration of the situation.

7.11. In this ‘assessment’, the BBC claimed that the majority of the threats “whilst are
derogatory towards the film, Peter and the wider BBC there are none to suggest that
Peter’s life or that his family is in real or immediate danger”. Such conclusion is
wholly subjective. When making a subjective conclusion like this, it is even more
important to set out the facts and analysis on which the conclusion was based.
This was not done.

7.12. Our client also continues to disagree strongly with the BBC’s conclusion in this
regard. Our client, who is the person on the ground, with the benefit of local
knowledge and understanding of Nigerian culture, and the person receiving the
threats (which continue to this day) and who is clearly best placed to understand
their severity, still considers that he remains in significant danger.
7.13. The risk assessment also states that our client was offered alternative
accommodation. We understand that this is untrue, and he was not offered
suitable alternative accommodation to move to for an interim period. Instead, our
client felt obliged to safeguard his own life by fleeing Abuja the same day the
Documentary was broadcast. The BBC asked our client via WhatsApp on 23 May
2021 if he or his wife “wish to move to alternative accommodation for a few days
whilst we monitor the reaction then let us know.” This empty offer came at a time
when the BBC was aware that our client had already urgently fled Abuja to protect
his own safety. The BBC did not make any actual arrangements to provide for our
client while he was in hiding in Southern Nigeria. Our client was not offered
alternative accommodation after he advised the BBC that his wife could not use
her own ID to check in to any hotel or temporary accommodation.

7.14. The risk assessment conveyed to our client stated that Peter’s case, will “continue
to be monitored” by the BBC High Risk team and “should it change then the required
actions taken”. We understand that a WhatsApp group was created with our
client, Tom Watson, Marc Perkins and Oliver Sparks in which our client was asked
to highlight threats received to the BBC on an ongoing basis, and to allow for the
BBC to provide a real time risk assessment. Due to the severe mental and physical
stress that our client was under as a result of the BBC’s failure to provide our
client and his family with adequate support and protection, he has been unable to
further update the BBC in this regard. As stated at paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 above,
our client’s mental and physical health rapidly deteriorated as a result of the
broadcast of the Documentary, the threats he was receiving and the BBC’s failure
to help him, to the point where he has been unable to even give instructions to us
for lengthy periods of time.

7.15. Our client remains desperate to be relocated to a place where he could feel safe
and live safely with his family. The BBC failed to relocate our client and his family,
failed to put into place any adequate security measures and took two weeks to
conduct a ‘risk assessment’, which wholly failed to comply with industry standards
and is clearly open to challenge on the basis that it contains no reasoning
whatsoever.
8. Social Media6

8.1. The Contributor Guidance also states:

“We should also consider NOT publishing content to social if we think the contributor
is particularly vulnerable to comment. We should ensure that the full and appropriate
context is included in any cut down and we should keep a particular watch on
comment – we can’t just stick it up and forget about it, if we want to post it to social,
that carries with it a due care obligation.”

“The BBC has a large footprint and even experienced social media users, such as
influencers, may not expect the reaction they could get following a BBC broadcast or
publication. Discussions should take place with contributors as part of the informed
consent process, highlighting the pitfalls and advising them how to reduce risks on
social platforms.”7

8.2. As set out above, the BBC included the Scene in the Trailer, which was published
on social media platforms, in particular Instagram and Facebook, in clear
violation of the guidance. The publication of the Trailer on social media imports a
due care obligation on the BBC. The Scene was repeated and slowed down during
the Documentary, which was clearly done to sensationalise the content and was
highly inappropriate, particularly given the risks highlighted by our client. Given
that the Scene was self-evidently likely to provoke a highly inflammatory reaction
amongst Mr Isah’s cult-like following in Nigeria, and in the context of our client
having raised legitimate concerns directly with the BBC prior to the broadcast of
the Trailer regarding the personal safety of the contributors if the BBC were to
include the Scene (as detailed at paragraph 3.2 above), the inclusion of the Scene
amounts to a clear breach of the guidance in this regard.

8.3. Moreover, despite the threats received by our client due to his involvement in the
Documentary, the Trailer remains visible on Instagram and Facebook. These
continue to share a 10-minute clip of the Documentary in which the controversial
Scene is included. The full Documentary is also still available on YouTube and on
BBC iPlayer to this day. This is seriously aggravating the harm caused to our client
as, while ever the footage remains online, Mr Isah’s followers can find it and
continue their campaign of threats against our client.

6
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/vulnerable-contributors
7
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/vulnerable-contributors
9. Requirements

9.1. After weeks of informal communications between our client and the BBC,
whereby our client attempted to secure the BBC’s engagement to assist him and
his family, he raised a formal complaint with the BBC on 5 July 2021 after he was
unable to make progress through informal channels.

9.2. Your reply of 22 July 2021 purports to respond to the complaints our client raised;
however, it is clear from the chronology set out above that the BBC simply did not
do enough for our client in the circumstances.

9.3. Whilst at this stage we are not asking the BBC to treat this as a formal complaint
under the BBC Editorial Complaints Process (or to (yet) exercise discretion to
admit our complaint out of time), self-evidently our client has a strong case
against the BBC in respect of multiple breaches of the Guidelines and the Ofcom
Code.

9.4. We have set out the relevant breaches in this letter, trusting that the BBC will do
the right thing at this juncture and agree to provide the assistance that our client
requires – and that should have been provided already in accordance with the
duties owed by the BBC to our client under the Guidelines – to secure the safety
and wellbeing of him and his family.

9.5. We expressly reserve our client’s rights to take further action in respect of the
BBC’s breaches of the Guidelines, and the duties owed by the BBC to our client at
law, in the event that the required assistance is not forthcoming. We trust that this
will not be necessary.

9.6. Accordingly, our client requests from the BBC:

9.6.1. Assistance in the form of both practical and financial assistance, to relocate
our client, his wife and his young child to a safe location in Dakar in Senegal;

9.6.2. Appropriate support for our client’s psychological and physical health; and

9.6.3. Compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred by our client as a

result of (i) having to relocate himself to a hotel at his own expense
 following the broadcast of the Documentary; and (ii) being unable to work
since the broadcast of the Documentary on 17 May 2021 as a result of both
being forced to remain in hiding and the resultant stress, anxiety and health
problems he has suffered directly as a consequence of the broadcast.

9.7. We invite the BBC to make its proposals to our client directly, by email to
peternkanga@gmail.com, as a matter of priority.

9.8. Our client remains in hiding, unable to work and separated from his family.
Without the BBC’s assistance and the BBC fulfilling the obligations it owed him,
our client cannot hope to return to a normal life.

9.9. We trust therefore that the BBC will do the right thing and abide by its obligations
to our client.

Please kindly confirm receipt of this letter.

All of our client’s legal rights are reserved without limitation.

Yours faithfully

SCHILLINGS