Mehdi Hassan VS. Daniel Bwala: Substance Over Form 

The last 36 hours have been replete with needless cacophony about the Head-2-Head confabulation between Dr. Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser/Spokesperson to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Media and Policy Communications and Al-Jazeeera’s On-Air-Personality (OAP), the fiery Mehdi Hassan. But rather than address the elephant in the room – the Nigerian nation, netizens and social media commentators have been largely emotive.

A critical observation of the interview reveals a striking reality – an average Nigerian mind is driven by emotionalism and melodrama, not logic. Otherwise, it is an open and shut fact that a substantial portion of the exchange appeared less at interrogating Nigeria as a subject and more at scrutinizing Bwala as an individual. And his past as an opposition figure.

Given our collective tendency towards emotionally charged political reactions and our ever-propensity to display a cache of cathexes, it is therefore not flabbergasting that many viewers emerged from the interview discussing Bwala’s personal history rather than Nigeria’s contemporary challenges.

Like Hassan himself who made the interview more about Bwala – his person, rather than about the country and the administration of President Tinubu, all that has been overt in the public space is people ‘majoring on minor, and minoring on major’. Dr. Bwala within hours became the #1 trending on Elon Musk’s blogosphere – X (formerly Twitter).

In the view of this writer, people who have commented on the interview can be broadly categorised into three (3) ‘communities’ scilicet – the Obidient myrmidons, the opposition vuvuzelas, as well as the APC goons. Each having, arguably though, their reason for holding such view (s) as the case may be.

THE OBIDIENT MYRMIDONS

This large community of Genzs (in street parlance), many of whom are bereft of history, saw an opportunity to take a pound of flesh against somebody whom they see as an antagonist to their ‘hero’ – Mr. Peter Obi – same man who has been jumping from one party to another and even (now) more in a rabbit hole. It was an ample opportunity for them to ‘tear him (Bwala) down’. Our own Kongi, the nonagenarian ‘Kòòfésò’ did not just call the Obidients nattering nitwits and barbarians for the fun of it. They are headless myrmidons and will wrestle anyone for that matter. Mehdi Hassan gave them a lifeline to do that.

THE OPPOSITION VUVUZELAS

Opposition members, largely the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and African Democratic Congress (ADC) saw an opportunity to come for a man who was once a veritable weapon/tool against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) at some point, but who later ditched them to pitch his tent with same party he once criticised. They felt he deserves some ‘woto-woto’. Hence, their billingsgate and vitriol. ‘God don catch am’, they’d have murmured within their ‘covens’.

THE APC ‘GOONS’

This is another community of people with divided interest. The ones our humble-to-a-fault lyrical legend Olamide Badoo would call ‘Awon Goons Mi’. There are those among them who hitherto fail to detach politics from emotions. They still cannot wrap their heads around the fact that a man who once went all out against the party and its candidate could be welcomed by same man – Mr. President they all claim to ‘love’. Why Bwala? This has been their agenda since the former was appointed. So, every mistake, they weaponise forgetting that same Bwala was everywhere canvassing for a Tinubu presidency before the APC Presidential Primaries.

On the flip side of it are those who may not necessarily have anything against Bwala’s appointment but are just not comfortable that his past – as an opposition figure – is now being used against him. They’d therefore advise that people are circumspect in their public utterances for the sake of posterity. Finally, the APC goons who apply logic devoid of any iota of mawkishness with their opinions.

THE BIG QUESTION!

Going by the interview, and if one can honestly interrogatile and pose a simple question to many who had taken the side of criticising Bwala’s delivery at the Conway Hall; “What precisely did you learn as a Nigerian from that interview?” The answer, more often than not, reveals that the ubiquitous hysteria and kerfuffle have little to do with policy, governance, or the structural issues confronting the nation. Instead, the discourse gravitates toward Bwala’s previous remarks, his political realignments, and archival clips that Nigerians were already familiar with long before the interview aired. It therefore inevitably raises a pertinent question; “Isn’t this what learned silk call ‘substance over form’?”

Such an approach reflects a familiar rhetorical strategy – one that deliberately shifts the battlefield from substance to personality. Once the conversation is redirected toward the individual rather than the issue itself – which is governance – the audience becomes preoccupied with assessing credibility instead of engaging with the argument.

Regrettably, emotional reactions often enable this tactic to flourish. Consequently, as earlier enthused, we end up majoring in the minor and minoring in the major. Rather than rigorously interrogating the substantive questions confronting Nigeria – policy direction, governance outcomes, and national priorities- the public discourse becomes fixated on whether Bwala appeared embarrassed, contradicted, or exposed.

In the final analysis, the national conversation risks devolving into a debate about a man – the Gwaski Bwala – rather than a meaningful reflection on the trajectory of a nation.

— Omogbolahan L.A. BABAWALE
Convener/Lead Resource Person
The Think-Tinubu Initiative (3TI)