…The Ethics and Consequences of Abandoning Civility in Political Communication
By Thomas Peretu and Mallam Candido Ibrahim Maigari
A presidential spokesperson is more than a defender of government. He is the public face of the Presidency, the custodian of its voice and the guardian of its credibility. His greatest assignment is not to win arguments but to build public trust.
It is against this standard that the recent verbal attacks on Cardinal John Onaiyekan by some presidential aides, following the meeting between the Catholic bishops and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, should be assessed.
The Catholic bishops did not mince words during their engagement with the President. They spoke candidly about the economic hardship, insecurity and growing public disillusionment. In doing so, they discharged the Church’s historic role as the conscience of society by speaking truth to power.
The controversy began after Cardinal Onaiyekan granted an interview to Arise Television, elaborating on the bishops’ position. Instead of engaging the substance of his observations, some presidential spokespersons reportedly questioned his motives and attempted to reduce a national conversation to questions about his political sympathies.
That was a costly communication error.
The first duty of a spokesperson is to explain policies, clarify misconceptions and strengthen public confidence in government. And not inputting motives and assumptions onto critical national discourse. A Professional spokesperson is not to engage in verbal brawls or personalise disagreement. Once a spokesperson abandons persuasion for personal vilification, he ceases to be a communicator. Not only has he trivialised the essence of the criticism but he has equally opened to the window to more negative perception of the government. In facr, he has become an attack dog instead of a thorough bred professional.
Ironically, the exchanges may have done greater reputational damage to the Presidency than the Cardinal’s interview itself. At a moment when Nigerians expected empathy, reassurance and evidence, they were treated instead to confrontation. The impression conveyed was one of intolerance rather than confidence.
The episode also revealed a deficit of two indispensable virtues of political communication—prudence and fidelity.
Prudence demands careful judgment before words are released into the public space. It asks not only, “Can this be said?” but also, “Should it be said? Is this the right time, the right language and the right tone?” Fidelity requires faithfulness to truth, civility and the enduring interests of the institution one represents. In their haste to defend the President, the spokespersons appeared to sacrifice both. Their words generated more heat than light.
There was also an unmistakable element of political inconsistency. When Cardinal Onaiyekan criticised President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, many voices within the APC celebrated him as a courageous patriot. Today, because his criticism is directed at an APC-led government, some seek to dismiss him as partisan. Yet truth does not change because the occupant of Aso Rock changes.
Cardinal Onaiyekan has earned national respect over decades by standing consistently for justice, constitutionalism and the welfare of ordinary Nigerians. He opposed the third-term agenda during the Obasanjo administration and has spoken frankly to successive governments without fear or favour. His moral authority rests not on political affiliation but on consistency.
The unfortunate response of some presidential aides suggests a limited appreciation of the finer principles of strategic political communication. Political Communication at the highest level of government cannot be driven by impulse, emotion or partisan excitement. It demands discipline, emotional intelligence and an unwavering commitment to the larger reputation of the Presidency
What They Ought to Have Done
The failure was not that the presidential aides defended their principal. That was both their right and their responsibility. Their failure lay in the manner of their defence.
They should have studied the Cardinal’s observations carefully before responding. Moreso, when the complaints were not anchored on sentiment but on the realities of our times. Wise communicators seek first to understand before seeking to be understood.
They should have answered criticism with facts, outlining the concrete steps the administration has taken to address inflation, insecurity, unemployment and the high cost of living. Facts persuade where insults fail.
They should have thanked the Catholic bishops for their candour. Governments that welcome honest feedback project confidence, not insecurity.
They should have appealed to Nigerians for patience while assuring them that every effort is being made to ease the nation’s hardship. Political communication without empathy rarely succeeds.
They should have exercised greater restraint in their choice of language. Every statement issued by a presidential spokesperson reflects directly on the President. Civility is not weakness; it is strength under discipline.
They should have built bridges instead of burning them. Democracies flourish through dialogue, not demonisation.
Above all, they should have demonstrated a deeper appreciation of the pain Nigerians are experiencing. In times of hardship, citizens want more than explanations; they want evidence that their leaders understand their struggles.
Political communication is not warfare. It is the art of earning trust.
A spokesperson wins no argument by losing the public’s respect. The strongest governments are not those that silence criticism but those that answer it with humility, evidence and results. In politics, words do not merely defend power; they define it.
That is the enduring lesson from this episode.
