‘A man that does not have time to do things right will have all the time to do it again’,- John Wooden
In the high-stakes arena of international media, where narratives shape perceptions and influence policy, Nigeria’s recent forays into global interviews have exposed critical flaws in strategic communication. The appearances of Daniel Bwala, spokesperson for President Bola Tinubu, on Mehdi Hasan’s Head to Head on Al Jazeera and Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar on Piers Morgan Uncensored were intended to defend the administration’s record on security, corruption, and governance. Instead, they unraveled into spectacles of evasion, denial, and contradiction, amplifying global scrutiny rather than mitigating it. As a seasoned PR professional with decades of experience advising clients on high-profile engagements, I’ve watched these unfold with a mix of dismay and recognition. These are not isolated blunders but symptoms of deeper systemic issues in how Nigerian leaders approach media. Drawing from communication theories, psychological insights, and real-world evidence, let’s dissect what went wrong and how to avoid such pitfalls in the future.
The Pitfall of Prioritising Argument Over Expertise
Nigerian politicians have long favored lawyers for their combative style and journalists for their narrative-spinning prowess or media clout when selecting spokespeople. This preference sidelined certified PR professionals, who are trained in crisis management, audience analysis, and message calibration. In Bwala’s case, his background as a lawyer and former opposition figure made him a combative defender, but it also left him vulnerable to Hasan’s relentless fact-checking. Bwala’s repeated claims of ‘I’m not aware’ in response to Amnesty International reports on impunity and rising insecurity echoed a lawyer’s courtroom deflection rather than a communicator’s informed rebuttal. Similarly, Tuggar, a diplomat with a background in international relations, struggled to counter Morgan’s barrage on Christian persecution statistics, dismissing sources like Open Doors and Intersociety as ‘unverified’ without offering robust alternatives.
This choice reflects a broader trend in Nigerian governance: valuing adversarial skills over strategic empathy. PR experts, by contrast, emphasise building rapport and anticipating traps. As communication scholar Wilbur Schramm noted in his foundational work on mass communication, effective messaging requires not just knowledge but the ability to bridge sender-receiver gaps. Opting for lawyers or journalists may win domestic debates, but on global stages, it often leads to perceptions of defensiveness and incompetence, as seen in these interviews where the spokespeople appeared outmatched and unprepared.
The Absence of Strategy: Noise Before Defeat
Appearing on platforms like Head to Head or Piers Morgan Uncensored without clear objectives is akin to entering a battlefield unarmed. As the ancient strategist Sun Tzu aptly put it, ‘Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat’.
In these cases, the Nigerian representatives seemed armed only with talking points—defending reforms, denying genocide allegations, and pivoting to global comparisons—without a overarching goal. What was the aim? To reassure international allies, counter Trump’s threats of aid cuts, or reshape perceptions of Nigeria’s security? Absent a defined purpose, the interviews devolved into reactive defenses.
Evidence abounds in the exchanges: Bwala’s interview lacked a proactive narrative, allowing Mehdi to dominate with statistics like a 26% rise in conflict deaths (from 8,700 in 2023 to 11,000 in 2025) and unchecked kidnappings.
Tuggar similarly faltered when pressed on church attacks, admitting uncertainty on exact figures while rejecting claims of over 50,000 Christian deaths since 2009. Without targeting specific audiences such as U.S. policymakers or the Nigerian diaspora, these appearances amplified criticisms rather than achieving victories like policy support or public sympathy.
A great philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, once warned, ‘Without a purpose, nothing should be done’. This echoes across history: Successful media engagements, like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew’s strategic interviews in the 1990s to attract investment, always tie tactics to broader objectives.
In Nigeria’s case, the lack of planning turned potential platforms for advocacy into echo chambers of doubt, as evidenced by online backlash labeling the interviews ’embarrassing’ and ‘second-hand cringe’.
Media Mapping: The Art of Knowing Your Adversary
The greatest mistake in warfare or media is underestimating the opponent. Effective media mapping involves dissecting outlets, hosts, and their styles to tailor responses. As Sun Tzu advised, ‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles’. Yet, these Nigerian engagements showed a glaring absence of such preparation.
Communication scholars have long emphasized this through theories like agenda-setting, pioneered by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their 1972 Chapel Hill study, which demonstrated how media dictate public priorities by framing issues. Framing theory, advanced by Erving Goffman, highlights how biases shape narratives e.g., Western media often frames African conflicts through lenses of religious extremism or governance failure. Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent, critiqued media biases rooted in corporate and state interests, noting, ‘The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly’.
In practice, Mehdi Hasan exemplifies this: Having followed him for decades, I can affirm he debates to win, armed with facts, surveys, and opposition quotes. His book How to Win Every Argument underscores his data-driven, interruptive style. Mehdi hit Bwala with Amnesty reports, UN poverty stats (141 million in multidimensional poverty by 2026), and Bwala’s own flip-flops from critic to defender. Without mapping, Bwala’s talking points crumbled under this onslaught.
Piers Morgan, conversely, embodies bias-driven persistence: He interrupts relentlessly on preconceived notions, with producers fact-checking in real-time. Morgan grilled Tuggar on Trump’s ‘genocide’, claims, citing 18,000 churches destroyed and 100,000 killings, refusing to let evasions slide. Studies like those from the Pew Research Center on media bias reveal how hosts like Morgan amplify sensational angles, such as faith-based violence, to drive viewership.
Tailored messaging is key that why in my work preparing clients, we craft responses that are media- and audience-specific. For instance, for Medhi Hasan, emphasise data rebuttals while for Morgan, concise soundbites to counter interruptions will be more effective than long stories.
A 2018 study in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly on interviewer styles found that unprepared guests face 40% more interruptions, leading to perceived unreliability. Nigeria’s oversight here turned potential dialogues into debacles.
The Messenger Matters: Credibility as the Core of Persuasion
Strategic communication is a holistic package: Not only must the message convince, but the messenger must be believable. Bwala and Tuggar, while knowledgeable, were ill-suited envoys. Bwala’s past criticisms (e.g., accusing Tinubu of vote-buying and militia creation) haunted him, eroding trust. Tuggar’s diplomatic poise faltered amid accusations of lying, as guests like Reverend Ezekiel Dachomo provided graphic counter-narratives of mass burials.
Psychological biases underscore this: Source credibility theory, from Carl Hovland’s Yale studies in the 1950s, shows that perceived expertise and trustworthiness drive persuasion. Hovland and Walter Weiss’s 1951 experiment demonstrated that high-credibility sources (e.g., experts) sway attitudes more, but low-credibility ones (e.g., those with biases) provoke skepticism. The halo effect, where one positive trait (e.g., eloquence) biases overall judgment, can backfire if inconsistencies emerge—as with Bwala’s denials.
Famous studies like the Milgram experiments on authority bias reveal how credible figures influence compliance, but mismatches (e.g., a flip-flopping spokesperson) trigger reactance.
A 2010 meta-analysis by G. Tarcan Kumkale in Psychological Bulletin found that source credibility amplifies message impact under high motivation, but diminishes it when biases are perceived. In these interviews, the messengers’ perceived inconsistencies fueled distrust, turning defenses into liabilities.
Preparation Is Not Optional
In the merciless arena of global media, preparation is the non-negotiable line between influence and humiliation. Nigeria’s recent Al Jazeera and Piers Morgan appearances proved it: spokespersons walked in with talking points instead of battle plans media mapping, bias anticipation, tailored messaging, credibility checks and paid the price in viral embarrassment.
Preparation isn’t optional; it’s the difference between commanding the narrative and surrendering it. As Sun Tzu taught, victory belongs to those who prepare thoroughly knowing the host, the traps, and their own strengths. In today’s information war, that means rigorous rehearsal, scenario simulation, audience segmentation, real-time sentiment tracking, and certified PR architects leading from the front.
To institutionalise preparation and avert future global missteps, Nigeria must urgently establish a dedicated Department of Strategic Communication (or Bureau of Strategic Communication) at the federal level. Modeled on proven global successes like the UK’s Government Communication Service, which drives innovative, data-led impact to build public trust and counter disinformation; the US Global Engagement Center’s coordinated efforts to expose foreign narratives and safeguard national interests; and Singapore’s Smart Nation 2.0, which fosters trust, growth, and community cohesion through unified, citizen-centered messaging.
This centralised body would ensure coherent, professional messaging across government. The result: amplified public confidence, reduced misinformation, stronger inter-agency alignment, and a credible international projection that transforms potential crises into opportunities for genuine partnerships and domestic unity.
In the unforgiving spotlight of the world stage, preparation is not a luxury it is the prerequisite for respect, trust, and success.
Conclusion
These episodes stand as stark, viral cautionary tales Nigeria’s global spokespersons exposed in moments of unprepared vulnerability yet they also illuminate a clear, actionable path to redemption and renewal.
The imperative is unmistakable: Nigerian public and business leaders must make a decisive pivot, prioritizing ruthless strategic thinking and positioning certified PR professionals as essential architects not optional extras to forge bespoke, evidence-based strategies that leverage precise audience segmentation, bias analysis, media mapping, and real-time sentiment tracking.
Only through this expert-led, institutionally anchored approach can Nigeria’s international engagements rise from avoidable disasters to resounding triumphs bridging divides, forging genuine partnerships, and cultivating enduring trust both at home and abroad.
Let us heed the warning of the legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, who says ‘A man that does not have time to do things right will have all the time to do it again’.
Ishola, N. Ayodele is a distinguished and multiple award-winning strategic communication expert who specializes in ‘Message Engineering’. He helps Organizations, Brands and Leaders Communicate in a way that yields the desired outcome. He is the author of the seminal work, ‘PR Case Studies; Mastering the Trade’, and Dean, the School of Impactful Communication (TSIC). He can be reached via ishopr2015@gmail.com or 08077932282.
