By Usman Abdulkadir Taleeki
This week, my column examines an issue that has become increasingly visible and troubling: the persistent failures of Nigeria’s government in communicating effectively with its citizens. Communication is not just a method for issuing announcements or press statements. It is, in reality, the backbone of effective governance. The way a government communicates reflects its ability to organize, coordinate, and manage its policies. It shapes how citizens perceive leadership, it sustains trust between the people and the administration, and it signals competence, or lack thereof at the highest levels of government.
When communication repeatedly fails, it is rarely a matter of coincidence. Such failures often indicate deeper, structural weaknesses within government institutions. They point to inadequate verification systems, poor oversight, weak internal coordination, and insufficient professional accountability. In practical terms, the public perceives these lapses as signs that the administration is unprepared, disorganized, or inattentive to details that matter.
A clear example of this occurred on Thursday, January 22. The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy issued a press statement claiming that Alhaji Saidu Nasamu Dakingari, former governor of Kebbi State, had been appointed as Ambassador-Designate to Turkey. Within hours, the administration was forced to retract the statement, describing it as a “mistake.” Subsequent confirmation showed that Dakingari had not even appeared for Senate screening. This incident highlights a fundamental failure in information verification. Any competent communications team would have checked records and coordinated with relevant government agencies before making such an announcement. At the level of the presidency, errors like this are not trivial. They undermine confidence in government appointments, cause confusion among the public, and reflect a lack of professionalism and internal control.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. On January 5, a photo shared on the president’s official media handle, showing him with Rwandan President Paul Kagame, carried a visible “Grok” watermark, indicating that the image was sourced without proper editing or final checks. While the administration later described this as a technical oversight, the incident projected an image of carelessness and amateurism. In the realm of government communication, even minor errors like this carry significant weight. Citizens, journalists, and international observers interpret such lapses as indicators of attention to detail, priority-setting, and overall competence. A government that cannot manage such basic tasks raises questions about its capacity to handle more complex responsibilities.
Another serious failure occurred on December 26, 2025. On this day, Nigerians first learned of an airstrike on their territory not from their own government, but from the United States. The federal government later stated that the operation had been carried out with its cooperation. Nevertheless, the critical point is that citizens were not informed in advance about an event that directly affected their security. This represents a fundamental breakdown in the responsibility of government communication. Citizens have the right to timely and accurate information, especially when it concerns security matters. Failing to provide this information not only erodes trust in government institutions but also diminishes the perception of accountability. In situations like this, the public’s sense of safety and confidence in governance is compromised.
On April 10, 2024 another error reinforced this pattern. Sunday Dare, the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication, released a list of presidential appointments, asserting that they reflected regional fairness. Soon after publication, errors were identified in the list, forcing the post to be deleted and a formal apology issued. While some may see this as a minor mistake, it has broader implications. It indicates a lack of verification procedures, insufficient attention to detail, and an inability to properly manage sensitive information. Repeated errors of this kind contribute to a growing perception among the public that the administration’s internal processes are weak and that even routine tasks are prone to mistakes.
Similarly, on March 4, 2024, Bayo Onanuga, the Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, announced that the United Arab Emirates had lifted visa restrictions on Nigerians. Minutes later, he issued a correction stating that the UAE had not resumed visa issuance. This back-and-forth communication created confusion both domestically and internationally. Diplomatic relations are highly sensitive, and accurate communication is essential to maintaining credibility. Misleading or inconsistent statements can undermine trust, damage negotiations, and compromise national interests. A government that cannot maintain accurate messaging on the international stage risks both embarrassment and tangible diplomatic setbacks.
What is particularly striking is that these failures occur despite a historically large team of media aides assigned to the presidency. This team includes Daniel Bwala (Policy Communication), Sunday Dare (Media and Public Communications), Tunde Rahman (Senior Special Assistant on Media), Abdulaziz Abdulaziz (Print Media), O’tega Ogra (Digital and New Media), Tope Ajayi (Media and Public Affairs), Segun Dada (Social Media), Nosa Asemota (Visual Communication), Fredrick Nwabufo (Public Engagement), Linda Nwabuwa Akhigbe (Strategic Communications), and Aliyu Audu (Public Affairs). One might assume that the size of the team would ensure accuracy and efficiency, but in reality, it has not prevented these repeated blunders. The problem is not the number of personnel but the absence of proper coordination, verification, and professional oversight.
The implications of these mistakes extend beyond embarrassment. They reveal a government struggling with internal communication, risk management, and public accountability. They also reflect a pattern where mistakes, rather than competence, have become the signature of the administration. History may remember this presidency not only for its policy choices but also for the consistent inability of its media team to execute the basic functions expected of any modern government. In attempting to control the narrative, the team has instead allowed blunders to define the administration, leaving citizens questioning the credibility, capacity, and competence of the government.
Ultimately, communication is not just about issuing messages. It is a reflection of the institutions behind those messages. In this case, the mirror reveals a government whose public image is consistently undermined by preventable errors and whose capacity to manage information responsibly remains in doubt.
Usman Abdulkadir Taleeki writes from Abuja, Nigeria. He can be reached via [email protected]
Tags
Opinion