Thesearchlight.com

By Matthews Otalike, The Searchlight / August 3, 2026

It is time for truth-telling on the what President Tinubu’s supposed media men are doing. Nigerians deserve to know.

Tinubu’s media apparatus, featuring Bayo Onanuga, Daniel Bwala, Sunday Dare, and supporting aides, has developed a recognizable playbook for handling criticism. Rather than engaging substantively with policy failures (e.g., inflation spikes, fuel price impacts, debt accumulation, poverty surges, or insecurity), the team frequently shifts focus. Here is a breakdown of the most recurrent tactics, drawn from public statements, interviews, and reported incidents:

1. Personal and Character Attacks (Ad Hominem Deflection)

• How it works: Instead of addressing the substance of a critique (e.g., rising poverty or debt figures), the response targets the critic’s past, motives, or consistency.
• Examples:
  • Criticisms from Atiku Abubakar or Peter Obi on economic management are met with reminders of their political history, alleged hypocrisy, or “nomadism.” Onanuga has described interviews by opponents as “PR disasters” focused on personal ambition rather than engaging data.
  • Obasanjo’s “failing state” remarks were countered by highlighting his own past governance record instead of current metrics.
  • El-Rufai’s intra-party critiques were dismissed as “vengeance” rather than policy disagreement.
• Effect: This poisons the well, making the public debate about personalities instead of verifiable outcomes like inflation trends or debt service ratios exceeding 70-90% of revenue.

2. Context Stripping and Selective Quoting

• How it works: Isolate a phrase or clip from a longer statement, amplify it out of context, and portray the critic as insensitive or extreme.
• Examples:
  • Statements on fuel subsidy removal, economic data, or social cushions by aides like Onanuga are defended by accusing critics of cherry-picking while doing the same themselves.
  • Opposition or public figures’ comments on hardship are reframed as “anti-Nigeria” or support for chaos, ignoring the underlying data (e.g., World Bank poverty estimates or CBN debt figures).
• Effect: It creates viral soundbites that dominate discourse while substantive issues (e.g., naira depreciation impacts or unbudgeted expenditures) receive less scrutiny.

3. Whataboutism and Historical Deflection

• How it works: Point to previous administrations’ failures to minimize current shortcomings.
• Examples:
  • Responses to debt increases or reform pains often reference Buhari-era issues or inherited deficits, framing Tinubu’s tenure as corrective even as new borrowing and debt service burdens have grown significantly.
  • Criticism of communication strategy is met with defenses of the team’s “veteran” credentials rather than addressing coordination failures (e.g., contradictory statements between Onanuga and Ngelale).
• Effect: It lowers the bar — “We’re better than before” replaces “Here are measurable improvements and transparent corrections.”

4. Overwhelming Volume / Multi-Voice Noise

• How it works: Deploy multiple aides across platforms to flood the information space with opinion pieces, defenses, and counter-narratives, creating confusion and diluting focus.
• Examples:
  • The large team (over a dozen roles) produces dozens of articles defending policies, but coordination lapses lead to public contradictions and “too many cooks” perceptions.
  • Social media and traditional outlets are used for rapid-response rebuttals that rarely include new data or policy adjustments.
• Effect: Legitimate concerns get buried under volume; the public tires of the back-and-forth.

5. Misinformation Cleanup Cycles and Gaslighting

• How it works: Issue statements later walked back (or contradicted internally), then accuse critics of misrepresentation.
• Examples:
  • Past incidents include premature or inaccurate announcements (UAE visa, Nasdaq claims, event scheduling) followed by clarifications or deletions. Fact-checkers have repeatedly flagged presidential media outputs.
  • Critics highlighting these are labeled as peddlers of “fake news” while the original errors are downplayed.
• Effect: Erodes overall credibility and shifts scrutiny to the critic’s “bad faith.”

6. Calls for “Fair” or “Responsible” Criticism

• How it works: Urge the media/public to be “constructive” or “nation-building” while avoiding hard questions, often framing tough scrutiny as undermining the country.
• Examples:
  • President Tinubu and ministers have publicly asked media not to amplify insecurity or criticism excessively, positioning government sensitivity as patriotism.
• Effect: Attempts to set the terms of debate and imply that accurate reporting on failures is disloyal.

Overall Impact and Pattern

These tactics form a coherent defensive communications doctrine: minimize accountability by changing the subject, raising the emotional temperature, and controlling the narrative volume. They are effective at short-term damage control in a polarized media environment but corrosive to public trust over time. Nigerians facing concrete hardships (food prices, unemployment, insecurity) increasingly view the presidency as insulated and unresponsive.

This approach reflects a broader governance style prioritizing loyalty and narrative dominance over transparent engagement. For sustained legitimacy, especially ahead of future electoral cycles, shifting toward substantive responses — detailed policy data, regular unfiltered interactions, and admission of course corrections — would be more constructive than perpetual deflection.

The Searchlight continues to watch: Power that fears scrutiny rarely delivers lasting progress.