BY REV FR. GERALD NWAFOR
Public service, especially at the national level, requires preparation, clarity of thought, and the ability to defend one’s position under pressure. Recent reactions to the appearance of Daniel Bwala on Al Jazeera (by Mehdi Hassan) have generated debate among Nigerians both at home and in the diaspora. While many critics have condemned his performance outright, a fair reflection should examine the broader context of his political journey, the expectations placed upon him, and the responsibilities that come with representing a government on an international platform (Uche Onye Adia Njo).
Daniel Bwala is not a newcomer to Nigerian politics. He has moved across party lines, having once been associated with the All-Progressives Congress (APC), later aligning with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and eventually returning to the APC. Nigerians call this behavior political harlotry (Akwuna-kwuna). In Nigeria’s political environment, such shifts are not uncommon. Politicians frequently realign based on changing ideological positions, political strategy, money changing hands, or opportunities for influence. However, such transitions also come with a cost: past statements follow public figures wherever they go. Hence, the Daniel-episode and meltdown.
That reality appeared to confront Bwala during his televised interview. The interviewer Hassan reportedly raised previous statements he had made about the Nigerian president, including accusations and harsh criticisms from earlier stages of his political career. For any spokesperson defending a government, this situation presents a difficult challenge. When one has previously spoken strongly against the same leadership one is now defending, those words inevitably resurface. Daniel had in the past called the current president a criminal, a drug baron, and a person who formed a militia to attack the government in power with the intent to kill him (Daniel) (Onyenze bupusia oda adimma ka olachkwa ife obupulu).
Critics argue that Bwala appeared unprepared for this confrontation with his own past. According to viewers who watched the interview, he struggled to respond clearly to the questions posed to him. Rather than providing detailed explanations or contextualizing his earlier remarks, he reportedly responded several times by saying he did not recall making those statements. Legally speaking, “I do not recall” is a cautious phrase. Lawyers often use it when they wish to avoid confirming or denying statements without certainty. Yet in the arena of political communication, such an answer can appear evasive. A spokesperson representing a president and a government is expected to demonstrate confidence, command of facts, and persuasive reasoning. When answers sound uncertain or defensive, critics quickly interpret that as weakness. Thanks to the internet, which keeps records of every discussion and statement in this century.
The difficulty was compounded by the international stage. Al Jazeera is a global platform watched by millions. When a representative speaks there, he does not only represent himself; he represents a government, a political party, and to some extent the image of the country. For this reason, preparation becomes crucial. Anticipating difficult questions is part of the responsibility of any spokesperson. In our local language, was he expecting (nata-akara) kindergarten questions? You cannot go to CNN, BBC, FOX, and Al Jazeera and expect easy or flimsy questions.
Some observers say Bwala later complained that the interview was an ambush, that he was not given the questions beforehand, and did not expect inquiries about his past comments. But this defense itself raises another issue: what exactly is the nature of a media interview? Journalists are not obligated to provide questions in advance, particularly when interviewing political figures. In fact, part of journalism’s role is to challenge public officials and test the consistency of their positions. (Let the wind blow so we can see the back side of the chicken.) That is the job of the media in the first place to expose the corruption of the government. Anyone stepping onto such a platform must assume that every public statement they have ever made can be brought back for scrutiny. In the digital age, nothing truly disappears. Old speeches, tweets, and interviews remain accessible, ready to be cited at any moment.
Therefore, preparation requires more than simply understanding current policy; it requires reviewing one’s own history.
Beyond the immediate performance, the controversy also reflects a deeper issue in Nigerian political culture: the relationship between loyalty and credibility. When politicians frequently move between parties or reverse their positions, they risk losing public trust. Citizens begin to question whether their statements are based on principle or convenience. In Bwala’s case, critics point to his earlier harsh criticism of the very leadership he now defends (dog going back to its vomit). They argue that if those accusations were serious at the time, he should now explain clearly why his views changed. Did he receive new information? Did circumstances evolve? Or were those earlier statements simply part of political rivalry? Without such explanations, the transition appears inconsistent. In simple explanation, Daniel joined where his stomach will be taking care of QED.
Yet fairness requires acknowledging that political evolution is not inherently wrong. Many public figures across the world have criticized leaders at one point and later worked with them. What matters is whether they can explain the change convincingly. A thoughtful explanation could transform accusations of inconsistency into a narrative of growth or reconciliation. Unfortunately, according to many viewers, that explanation did not fully emerge during the interview. Instead, the discussion seemed to circle denial, uncertainty, and discomfort. For critics, this reinforced the perception that the government’s representative had failed to present a strong defense.
The reaction from Nigerians has therefore been sharp. Some express embarrassment, arguing that a spokesperson should be articulate, well prepared, and capable of confronting difficult questions directly. Others say the criticism has been exaggerated and that one interview should not define a person’s competence or career. (You cannot judge the palm wine tapper with one cup of wine). Still, the incident carries lessons that extend beyond one individual. It highlights the importance of media training, research, and strategic communication for anyone representing a government. In today’s interconnected world, a single interview can influence global perceptions. For Daniel Bwala himself, the moment may serve as an opportunity for reflection. Public life inevitably includes successes and setbacks. What matters is how individuals respond to criticism and whether they improve from experience.
A lawyer and political communicator can refine his approach, strengthen his arguments, and return better prepared. As a Christian, I should remind him too that pride goes before the fall (Nagala bulu ozo, odida esoya). I call on him to be humbler around the political circle because nobody knows everything.
For the government he represents, the episode also raises questions about the standards expected of those who speak on its behalf. Selecting spokespersons who combine loyalty with intellectual clarity, historical awareness, and communication skills is essential. When a nation’s policies are being discussed before a global audience, representation must be both confident and credible. In the end, the controversy surrounding Daniel Bwala’s appearance on Al Jazeera is not merely about one interview. It reflects larger concerns about political consistency, preparation, and accountability in public communication. Whether critics consider his performance a failure or simply an unfortunate moment, it has sparked a conversation about the standards Nigerians expect from those who defend their government on the world stage. I do not want my country to dance naked in the marketplace next time. Daniel, at best, should take a break from government work and public appearances and rebrand himself for the future.
