ANALYSIS: What Is the Job of a Presidential Spokesman?

ANALYSIS: What Is the Job of a Presidential Spokesman?

By Kabir Abdulsalam,

Few positions in government are as demanding, thankless, and perilous as that of a presidential spokesman. It is a role that requires the patience of a monk, the wit of a lawyer, and the hide of a crocodile. Every word is dissected, every silence analyzed, and every misstep magnified into national controversy.

The spokesman’s job is to defend the government’s policies, explain its failures, and translate presidential intentions into public understanding — often in the face of anger, confusion, and distrust. It is a job that walks the narrow line between truth and tact, loyalty and logic, empathy and persuasion. When handled well, it steadies the government’s image; when mishandled, it throws the entire presidency into crisis.

Mr. Bayo Onanuga, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Information and Strategy, has recently found himself at the heart of such a communication storm — one that starkly illustrates how fragile the balance of presidential messaging can be.

In a now-viral Facebook post announcing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s latest round of presidential pardons, Onanuga used the image of Maryam Sander — a woman convicted years ago for the murder of her husband — to symbolize mercy and national forgiveness.

It was, by every measure, a communication catastrophe.

Maryam Sander was no anonymous inmate. Her name once dominated headlines and courtroom drama at the turn of the millennium. For many Nigerians, her story remains synonymous with tragedy and violence. To see her face used in a government post as the emblem of presidential compassion felt both careless and offensive. As one online observer remarked, “If that’s mercy, what’s madness?”

But the incident was not an isolated blunder. It was only the latest in a growing list of communication lapses that have dogged Onanuga’s tenure and raised questions about the Tinubu administration’s media strategy.

There was the needless controversy over former President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to contest future elections — a matter of legal interpretation that should never have been a presidential aide’s concern. The comment reopened old political wounds and handed the opposition a fresh weapon of criticism.

Then came the confusion surrounding the list of posthumous national honours, where miscommunication forced clarifications and ignited yet another social media storm. In today’s fast-paced information ecosystem, even a poorly worded post can undo days of careful messaging — and this lesson seems to be learned repeatedly, the hard way.

Perhaps most politically damaging was Onanuga’s public attack on former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, accusing him of hypocrisy and bad faith. The tone was fiery but undiplomatic — more fitting for partisan combat than presidential communication. A presidential spokesman should embody statesmanship, not rivalry. When the government’s voice takes on the tone of street-level argument, it diminishes the dignity of the office it represents.

Equally troubling is the habitual tendency to blame “past administrations” for every policy setback. Nigerians are growing tired of this chorus. They did not elect new leaders to catalogue inherited problems; they expect them to fix them.

To his credit, Onanuga is no stranger to communication. His journalistic pedigree and decades of experience in media are well known. But as many have discovered, journalism and presidential communication are vastly different crafts. A journalist’s job is to challenge power; a presidential spokesman’s duty is to temper it with understanding. The journalist seeks truth; the spokesman manages it. The first demands courage, the second demands caution — and both require intelligence and restraint.

Presidential communication, particularly in a democracy as diverse and volatile as Nigeria’s, must be anchored in empathy and emotional intelligence. It is not enough to speak eloquently; one must speak wisely. Every image and phrase carries symbolic weight. A careless post, like the one involving Maryam Sander, can undo months of goodwill and reinforce public alienation.

Yet the deeper problem lies beyond one man’s misjudgment. It is symptomatic of a larger institutional failure — the absence of a coherent, disciplined communication strategy in the presidency. Without coordination and restraint, every aide becomes a broadcaster, and every opinion becomes official policy. The result is confusion where there should be clarity, noise where there should be authority.

The tragedy of governance in Nigeria is that arrogance often masquerades as strength, while humility is mistaken for weakness. A simple acknowledgment of error — even a brief apology — could have softened public outrage over the Sander image. Instead, silence allowed critics to frame the narrative, turning a minor lapse into a symbol of government insensitivity.

There is an old Yoruba proverb: “A child who does not hear the cry of others will one day cry alone.” Communication without reflection is propaganda, and propaganda without empathy is noise.

Mr. Onanuga still has the opportunity to correct course — to prove that presidential communication can be professional, credible, and humane. The spokesman’s voice should serve as a compass for national understanding, not an echo of partisanship.

Ultimately, public trust is not built through press statements or social media posts. It grows from consistency, honesty, and tone. Until the presidency’s communication team understands this, it will continue to turn small sparks into political infernos — and all without a single strike from the opposition.