Connect with us

Opinion

Daniel Bwala, Mehdi Hasan, and the Art of the Political Interview: A Professional Critique

Published

on

Daniel Bwala

A communications expert critiques the Daniel Bwala Mehdi Hasan interview and highlights key lessons for political spokespersons

For the past week, Al Jazeera’s Head to Head interview with presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala has dominated social media in Nigeria.

Advertisement

Also read: TV Anchor Rufai Slams Bwala Over Al Jazeera Claim

As a communications professional who preps senior executives for high-stakes interviews like this, it was difficult to watch Mr Bwala fall into one trap after another, but what followed was even worse.

His post-interview press release, in which he asserted that he was “ambushed” by Mehdi Hassan with questions about his past, was a bigger professional misstep than the grilling interview.

In claiming an ambush, Mr Bwala admitted to being unprepared for the scrutiny his current role demands.

Advertisement

For communications professionals, particularly spokespersons representing high-profile political elites, here is my professional take on Bwala’s encounter with Mehdi Hassan and what it teaches us about handling grilling interviews.

Lack of accountability: First, when you are a spokesperson to a major political figure as controversial as President Tinubu, and you have moved from ‘fiercest critic to official defender, everything is on the table the past, the present and the future.

Especially when being interviewed by an astute journalist like Mehdi Hassan on a show designed to be adversarial.

Advertisement

The show is called Head to Head for a reason; it’s ‘gladiatorial’, and Mehdi Hassan is renowned for his prosecutorial style.

Claiming ambush when a journalist pulls your past soundbites signals a lack of accountability and poor preparation.

Flat-out denial of publicly available information: The interview is a classic case study on the popular saying, “The internet never forgets.”

Advertisement

On seven distinct occasions, Mr Bwala denied past utterances or the accuracy of quotes attributed to him, even when confronted with transcripts of his exact words that were publicly available.

These rejections stripped away his credibility, one denial after the other.

Frequent “I am not aware” response: To be well-informed is one of the most potent weapons a spokesperson can take to an adversarial interview.

Advertisement

In addition to denying past utterances, Mr Bwala appeared to simply avoid difficult confrontation by frequently saying, “I am not aware.”

He used the phrase on four different occasions during the interview.

Repeatedly saying he was ‘not aware’ ceded control to the journalist and undermined his authority as a spokesperson, who should be a well-informed representative of the President of Nigeria.

Advertisement

False equivalence: During the interview, Mr Bwala repeatedly made comparisons to normalise some of the criticisms that came up.

Comparing insecurity in Nigeria to street crime in London is not only a false equivalence; it amounts to trivialising a national crisis that risks insulting the families of the over 11,000 victims.

On another occasion, when asked about why he chose to work for President Tinubu, he equated his switching allegiances to Mr Hassan’s career evolution, moving from BBC to Sky and MSNBC.

Advertisement

While comparisons can be a good way to lend credibility to arguments, they can be counterproductive if the analogy is spurious or not used in the right context.

This was largely the case in Mr Bwala’s Head-to-Head interview with Mr Hassan.

A few golden rules for navigating hostile media interviews

Advertisement

1. Build a bridge, not a wall

This is one of the first things spokespeople learn in media interview training.

When confronted with difficult facts about your past utterances, do not build a wall with denials or “I’m not aware” responses.

Advertisement

Neutralise the weaponisation of your past by owning your historical utterances briefly, then use clear transition sentences to bridge to your prepared message e.g., the evolution of your position.

If the journalist keeps bringing up your past criticisms, you keep pivoting to reinforce how and why your position has evolved.

This gives you more control to reinforce the present rather than constantly defending the past.

Advertisement

 

2. Master your data

As a spokesperson, data is one of the strongest armours you can use against a combative interviewer.

Advertisement

While preparing for the interview, it is important to organise your talking points, but equally important are the data you will present as proof points to support your arguments and counter criticisms.

When challenged about the rising death toll in Nigeria, Mr Bwala could have provided the ratio of combatants killed versus civilian casualties to underscore targeted military operations against terrorists.

The number of schools or pupils successfully relocated to safer locations would be more compelling than simply mentioning the ‘Save the School’ initiative.

Advertisement

The number of families who have benefited from tuition fee grants and cost-of-living interventions would be stronger than simply stating increased foreign reserves.

Vague phrases like ‘context matters’ don’t work in tough intellectual debates. Specific, verifiable metrics do.

3. Question the methodology, not facts

Advertisement

Instead of saying the data of a poll was derived from “drunken people”, as Mr Bwala did, challenge the methodology or question the bias of the source if you have grounds for such. For example, you could say something like: “While we respect the work of Amnesty International, their methodologies often overlook the nuanced security challenges of Northern Nigeria.”

4. Prepare! Prepare! Prepare!

Preparation is the key determinant of how your media interview will go.

Advertisement

It is not only about gathering information, but also about boosting confidence.

Journalists like Mehdi Hassan prepare obsessively for high-stakes political interviews, and you must match that energy by conducting a forensic audit of your past to anticipate your vulnerabilities.

Never assume that you will be treated with deference, as most Nigerian officials often expect.

Advertisement

Stay humble but firm in standing your ground when the grilling starts.

Overall, as a spokesperson, you cannot always control the questions you get asked, so you must focus on controlling your responses.

If you don’t like to be ambushed with difficult questions, then you aren’t ready to represent a president.

Advertisement

Also read: Showunmi Criticises Mehdi Hasan Over Bwala Interview

And more importantly, you aren’t ready for the scrutiny of 200 million Nigerians.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Parliamentary oversight or coordinated smear? The unprocedural attack on NNPCL’s Dr. Mumuni Dagazau

Published

on

Parliamentary

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

This provision empowers each chamber of the National Assembly to order investigations into any matter within its legislative competence, as well as the conduct of any person, authority, ministry, or government department entrusted with executing laws or administering public funds.

Furthermore, Section 62 provides the explicit constitutional foundation for establishing specialized committees, most notably the Committee on Public Petitions, to systematically receive, review, and investigate genuine citizen grievances.

Advertisement

To ensure these powers are exercised with order, discipline, and fairness, the legislature operates under clear Standing Orders formulated pursuant to Sections 60 and 101 of the Constitution.

While derived broadly from the investigative powers in Sections 88 and 128, the specific mechanisms, rules, and mandatory steps for receiving, vetting, hearing, and acting upon public petitions are meticulously detailed within these Standing Orders.

Having established this statutory background, it is essential to emphasize a fundamental principle: the constitutional mandate to receive and investigate petitions is an instrument of public accountability, not a weapon for personal vendettas, political witch-hunts, or legislative leverage.

Advertisement

It is within this context that the recent actions of the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) must be critically examined.

Its Chairman, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere Imo, disclosed at the House Committee Downstream Week that his committee had received a petition alleging money laundering and abuse of office against the Executive Vice President of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Dr. Mumuni Dagazau.

A rigorous examination of this public disclosure reveals a glaring departure from standard parliamentary practice.

Advertisement

This entire affair bears all the hallmarks of a orchestrated campaign driven by deep-seated malice; a desperate attempt to smear the character of public officers who have steadfastly refused to cow to covert blackmail or compromise their official responsibilities.

If this petition possesses any legitimate substance, why did the Committee Chairman fail to reveal the identity of the petitioner? Going public with an unverified, anonymous document without first conducting a preliminary administrative inquiry, establishing a prima facie case, or according Dr. Dagazau his fundamental constitutional right to a fair hearing is deeply troubling.

By disclosing to the press with unbacked claims, the committee has bypassed established legislative protocol and effectively subjected an officer to a trial by media.

Advertisement

In doing so, the committee risks allowing itself to be used as a proxy for disgruntled elements seeking to undermine ongoing reforms in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.

These interested parties appear unable to accept that the NNPC Limited of today operates under an entirely different paradigm from the NNPC Limited of the past. Under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), NNPC Limited is driven by financial prudence, corporate accountability, and strict integrity.

The days when public institutions could be coerced into handing out unearned benefits are over. Those who believe they can resort to character assassination to extract personal gain or force compliance will find that their blackmail falls on deaf ears.

Advertisement

Furthermore, the backdrop against which these remarks were made renders the Chairman’s comment even more disappointing.

At a major legislative gathering such as the “House Committee Downstream Week” a platform designed specifically to evaluate the health, security, and growth of Nigeria’s energy sector; the clear expectation of stakeholders, industry experts, and the general public was a forward-looking, substantive engagement.

National interest demanded that the committee focus its spotlight on critical industry dynamics: tracking progress made in local refining capacity, addressing persistent supply and bottlenecks, tackling crude oil theft, and formulating actionable legislative solutions to lower energy costs for everyday Nigerians.

Advertisement

Instead of seizing this vital platform to offer strategic direction and policy support, Hon. Ugochinyere Ikenga chose to reduce a high-level public gathering to a arena for personal attacks and unverified slurs against an executive officer.

Diverting public focus away from pressingly urgent structural challenges in the downstream sector to launch an unprovoked, uninvestigated attack on Dr. Mumuni Dagazau represents a severe misplacement of priorities.

It undermines the very essence of parliamentary responsibility, substituting constructive legislative leadership with sensationalism and targeted distraction at a time when the nation desperately needs solutions, not political theater.

Advertisement

While Dr. Dagazau reserves all legal rights to protect his hard-earned reputation against defamatory attacks and coordinated character assassination, the leadership of the House of Representatives should be urged to step in.

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

The National Assembly must protect the dignity of the parliament by ensuring that committee oversight remains grounded in fairness, thoroughness, and due process, rather than public spectacles driven by unverified petitions.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending