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

Seven prime ministers in a decade: What Nigeria can learn from Britain’s chaos

Published

on

Prime Minister

By Dr Toju Ogbe,

The resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, less than two years after leading the Labour Party to  a landslide electoral victory, was dramatic, yet reflected a pattern we have become familiar with in recent British politics.

Advertisement

Also read: Abolish state of origin: A prerequisite for true national integration

Starmer now joins a procession of fallen prime ministers stretching back to 2016 – from David Cameron to Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

None of these prime ministers was ousted through military intervention, popular insurrection, or a court order. Rather, each was ultimately brought down by the same political system that elevated them to electoral glory.

To the casual observer, the rapid turnover of British Prime Ministers in the last decade may appear chaotic, or even a symptom of political instability. Some argue that the British electorate has become ungovernable.

Advertisement

However, beneath the apparent chaos at Westminster lies an uncomfortable truth that African democracies would do well to examine, particularly Nigerians who wonder why our democracy has delivered so little despite almost three decades of uninterrupted civilian rule.

The turbulence of British politics over the last decade, presents an important lesson on democratic accountability beyond successful elections.

Once the prime minister is deemed a liability by their own political party, the mechanics of accountability are activated. The daggers are quietly drawn and the ruthless pressure to resign begins.

Advertisement

Every poll and survey on public opinion is closely monitored, local election results are taken as a referendum on leadership. Cabinet resignations begin to gain momentum and backbenchers get restless.

Once the news media smells an internal uprising, they amplify scrutiny of the prime minister, subjecting every move – speech, public appearance, political misstep etc to relentless examination.

Pressure gradually mounts until the prospect of bitter internal leadership challenge becomes impossible to resist. The Prime Minister falls.

Advertisement

For every British Prime Minister, winning an election is merely the beginning of examination, not the end. Political survival lasts only for as long as the prime minister maintains the confidence of his party and the parliament.

This is the muscle of British democratic accountability; a political culture that prioritises institutional survival over individual ambition. Starmer recognised this reality in his resignation speech:

“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”

Advertisement

That closing sentence alone is a masterclass in British institutional democracy. The party spoke. The leader listened. The correction comes from within.

 

Nigeria presents a strikingly different political logic.

Advertisement

Nigeria on the other hand, presents an interesting contrast with a different political logic and culture.

The notion that a governing party would overtly interrogate the performance of its own leader and engineer a transition to someone better equipped to maintain public confidence, is in most cases politically unthinkable in Nigeria.

Political parties in Nigeria do not coalesce  around ideological principles; rather, they operate more as electoral instruments organised around powerful individuals.

Advertisement

Internal dissent is often dealt with as betrayals rather than as part of healthy democratic engagement. Godfatherism and transactional loyalties shape political succession and leadership retention.

Once elected in Nigeria, there is an inherent assumption that a governor or president has a fixed two-term lease on power.

While 10 Downing Street is preparing to welcome its seventh Prime Minister in a decade, Nigeria, in contrast, has had only two democratically elected presidents during the same period – one of whom is still serving.

Advertisement

Social and economic conditions may deteriorate. Insecurity may worsen. Campaign promises may be ignored.

Public frustrations may become unbearable. Yet, incumbent governors and presidents often remain insulated from meaningful internal scrutiny and are even routinely anointed as ‘consensus’ candidate for second terms provided loyalties to godfathers, rather than the electorates are maintained.

The consequence is that loyalty, instead of performance is often rewarded at the expense of accountability.

Advertisement

This is not an argument for a revolving door at Aso Rock, as frequent leadership changes, by themselves, do not guarantee good governance.

Rather it is a case for making accountability an integral aspect of party politics in Nigeria.

Although the Nigerian presidential system provides for a fixed four-year term regardless of party confidence, political parties should however, be more than instruments for election campaigns, activated to simply retain or take over power every four years.

Advertisement

Electoral victory, should not be the ultimate goal, but the starting point of public service where democratic legitimacy must be continuously earned.

Equally important, political parties must develop the institutional maturity to honestly evaluate their own leaders. They must prioritise public interest and institutional credibility over loyalty to ‘Godfathers’.

The ultimate lesson from Westminster’s revolving door is clear: the true strength of a democratic system, lies not in the ability to produce leaders, but the capacity to effectively replace them, when they no longer command confidence.

Advertisement

Protecting failing leaders from accountability weakens democracy and political parties must ensure that no leader is more powerful than the institution.

Also read: Madugu Targets Strong WAFCON Title Defence for Super Falcons

As political parties gear up for the 2027 general elections, the political class must decide what matters more: we can continue to reward blind loyalty and endure predictable decline, or discover the courage to demand accountability from those who seek to lead us.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending