When politicians cannot take a tough question

There is something increasingly uncomfortable about political interviews on Nigerian television. A journalist asks a difficult question, a politician or political spokesman dislikes the question, and instead of answering it, the guest attacks the journalist. Before long, the subject that brought them to the studio has disappeared, replaced by accusations, counter-accusations and personal insults.

Last week, Lere Olayinka, spokesman for FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, repeated that on air when ARISE News anchor Rufai Oseni asked him a question on The Morning Show. Oseni asked why former Humanitarian Affairs Minister Betta Edu had been included in President Bola Tinubu’s 2027 campaign council despite the corruption allegations that had surrounded her.

Olayinka responded inter alia: “I don’t want to answer any question from you. I want this discussion to be among reasonable human being (sic) – people who will not describe others as gbewudani.” The programme’s co-anchor, Ayo Mairo-Ese, registered her displeasure with Olayinka’s choice of words, reminding him that he knew he was coming to the programme to meet the three anchors and answer questions from them. Olayinka maintained his position, and she ended the interview.

But it is important to look at the context. Oseni’s “Gbewudani” comment was not made during the interview with Olayinka. It had been made a day earlier, when Oseni was discussing Wike’s decision to support Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election rather than the PDP’s presidential candidate, Senator Sandy Onor. Oseni used the expression to describe the PDP candidate’s position in relation to Wike’s political stance, given that Wike is in total control of the PDP, which led to the exit of former vice president and presidential candidate of the ADC, Atiku Abubakar. Oseni wondered how Wike would be in charge of the PDP and the choice of its presidential candidate while saying publicly that he would support the candidate of another party, thereby making the PDP candidate a lame duck.

Whatever one’s opinion of Oseni’s choice of words, that is a separate argument from the question he asked Olayinka the following day. In that interview, Oseni did not insult Olayinka or provoke him. He asked a political question in a calm, civil manner, and Olayinka chose not to answer because he had already decided he would not engage Oseni. That is where the incident becomes more than another television quarrel. It raises a serious question about the capacity of some of our political actors to distinguish between an uncomfortable question and an unacceptable interviewer.

Oseni is not a neutral participant in the political conversation. He asks tough questions, challenges claims, and is often unwilling to allow political spokespeople to glide past contradictions. That is precisely what a journalist should sometimes do. Politicians may like a journalist who never makes them uncomfortable, but that journalist is not doing the public much of a service.

The problem is that some APC politicians and supporters appear to approach interviews with Oseni with a siege mentality. They seem to arrive expecting hostility. Therefore, they interpret disagreement as hostility. Once Oseni challenges a claim or asks a question that could make the government look bad, the interview can quickly become personal.

The guest attacks the journalist, the journalist responds, tempers rise, and the audience is left watching a quarrel rather than listening to an examination of the issues.

Compare this with the other top political parties. When Oseni questions Peter Obi or his supporters or Atiku Abubakar’s supporters, the interviews do not routinely degenerate into these personal battles. When APC officials appear before foreign media organisations and face tough questions, they don’t lose their cool and attack the interviewers. They may disagree with the interviewer, reject the premise of a question or offer a different answer, but they generally understand that being challenged is part of being interviewed. They comport themselves and never resort to insults or attacks. Why, then, should a Nigerian journalist asking difficult questions be treated as an enemy?

Part of the answer may lie in the political environment that has emerged since the 2023 election campaign. President Tinubu has largely avoided the kind of regular, probing media interviews that would expose him personally to sustained questioning. Muhammadu Buhari had set the tone by avoiding media interviews throughout his eight years in office. In Tinubu’s absence, members of his administration, aides and political supporters have become the public faces defending his record. Some of them appear to have developed little tolerance for questions or comments that contradict the government’s preferred narrative.

• 2027: Ogun PDP deputy gov candidate assures opposition of inclusivity
• Limit your assessment to presidential aspirants you know, Adebayo replies Datti
• 2027: PDP chieftain targets 90% Ekiti votes for Tinubu

That is unhealthy for democracy. Political communication cannot be only about delivering messages to friendly audiences. If you believe your government is doing well, you should be able to explain why when someone says it is not. If you believe a policy is succeeding, you should be able to defend the evidence when a journalist questions it.

The same principle applies to the journalist. Rufai Oseni has a reputation for tough questioning, and that reputation is not necessarily a problem. But these repeated confrontations offer another lesson: a journalist must learn not to take the bait. Oseni can sometimes lose his cool when a guest attacks him. In responding, he occasionally uses words that reveal his anger. That is understandable on a human level, but professionalism demands more.

A journalist does not need to win an argument with a guest. He needs to ask the question, pursue the answer and allow the audience to judge the response. The moment he begins exchanging words with the person he is interviewing, he surrenders some of the authority his position gives him.

This is where Oseni can learn from the very politicians who provoke him. Do not allow the person sitting opposite you to decide the emotional temperature of the interview. If a guest calls you biased, steer the focus back to the question or the next question. If the guest insults you, note the importance of decorum while on air and ask the next question. If the guest refuses to answer, point that out and move on. The calm interviewer will always be more powerful than the angry one.

But political spokespeople have an even more basic responsibility. You do not have to like a journalist to answer his question. You do not even have to respect his style. If you believe he has wronged you, challenge him on it. Write to his station. Demand a correction. Explain your objection. But do not confuse a personal grievance with a professional exemption from scrutiny.

Olayinka’s decision to refuse Oseni’s question illustrates the danger perfectly. He may genuinely have believed that Oseni’s earlier use of “Gbewudani” was offensive or inappropriate. He was entitled to say so. But refusing to answer a completely separate question the next day did not strengthen his argument; it made the interview about Oseni rather than about Betta Edu, the campaign council or the government’s political choices.

This is similar to the Donald Trump model of dealing with the media. Trump has frequently attacked media organisations and journalists he dislikes, labelled them, challenged their legitimacy and sometimes walked away from interviews. His political allies and supporters have often adopted a similar posture towards media outlets they regard as hostile. The strategy can be politically effective because it mobilises supporters against a perceived enemy. But it also creates a dangerous habit: treating scrutiny itself as an act of hostility. Democracy cannot function that way.

There is nothing wrong with tough journalism. There is nothing wrong with defending a political position vigorously. There is also nothing wrong with disagreeing passionately. What is wrong is allowing the disagreement to become more important than the issue being discussed.

Oseni needs to learn to keep his cool when provoked. Olayinka and other political spokespeople need to learn that a tough question is not a personal attack. If both sides can master those two lessons, Nigerian television will have fewer viral quarrels and more useful interviews. And that may be the real test of professional communication: whether you can remain disciplined when provoked.