Public communication is one of the most delicate challenges faced by people in public life, whether in the corporate or public sector.
Many people suddenly find themselves in positions of influence and become potential newsmakers, interview subjects and targets of journalists seeking stories and, in particular, exclusive scoops.
I used to explain during communication coaching sessions, as well as to senior officials whose media relations I managed at different times, that they should never feel compelled to say things they do not want to say. No matter how aggressive or persistent a journalist may be, public officials must always exercise caution over what they say.
A journalist may make an interviewee feel comfortable and may even reassure the person that anything considered unsuitable for publication can be edited out. The journalist may also encourage the interviewee to decline questions that make them uncomfortable.
However, a good journalist knows how to use follow-up questions to draw out information that an interviewee may not ordinarily intend to disclose.
By the time the interview gets underway and the subject becomes relaxed, it is possible to say things without fully considering how particular remarks may be interpreted or presented in the final story.
The point is that journalists, while on duty, are not working for politicians or influential individuals. They work for media organisations that need compelling stories. They look for scoops, strong comments and material capable of attracting public attention.
That is part of what makes journalism competitive: finding the story, securing the significant comment and capturing the moments that matter.
After reading the interview granted by former First Lady Aisha Buhari to the BBC Hausa Service, I was tempted to conclude that something similar may have happened.
She could have expressed the same concerns in more delicately phrased terms.
I have always held the view that anybody occupying a prominent public position should undergo media training. Such training should cover everything from speech delivery, poise and pronunciation to basic communication skills before the individual is placed before a Nigerian public that subjects the activities of public officials to intense scrutiny.
In my view, the Aisha Buhari interview fell short in this regard. She gave the BBC Hausa Service a major scoop, which, in my assessment, created considerable political difficulties for her husband rather than helping his administration.
Given the enormous public reaction to the interview, I would have expected that by now she might have attempted to clarify her comments or explain that they were not intended to discredit or undermine her husband’s administration.
Nothing of that nature has happened. What does that suggest? It could mean that the interview was deliberate and that she stands by the words attributed to her.
She has subsequently been described by some commentators as the “good lady in the Villa.” Others have praised her as a modern wife who can speak her mind and exercise her right to free speech. She has also been described as fearless and assertive.
I have also heard suggestions that she spoke out of frustration, particularly over her claim that a cabal within the Villa was influencing appointments and allegedly sidelining members of the All Progressives Congress.
But her position, in my view, reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of power politics.
There will always be influential groups around the seat of power. Political power is so potent that people operating within its corridors will constantly seek to influence its direction.
If it is true that the President or those around him recruited people who were not members of the APC into government, that is not necessarily a negative development. It could equally be viewed as an indication that competence, rather than party membership alone, was being considered.
A President does not necessarily need to know every person he appoints personally, provided such individuals are competent and capable of serving the interests of the country.
The First Lady appeared to suggest that APC membership should carry significant weight in determining who works within the Buhari administration.
On another level, however, she appeared determined to prevent anyone from hijacking her husband’s Presidency and seemed convinced that those attempting to do so did not have the country’s or her husband’s best interests at heart.
But what does that say about the President himself?
The First Lady also expressed concern that, if the prevailing situation continued, she might not be able to campaign for her husband in 2019 if he decided to seek re-election.
She spoke positively about efforts to improve security in the North-East, but her broader comments created the impression that she did not believe enough had been done to justify another term.
She was quoted as saying: “What I fear is the uprising of 15.4 million people.”
She also said: “Nobody thought it is going to be like this. But now that it is so… Sometimes when one is doing something wrong without him knowing, but when people talk to them, they should listen.”
The obvious question arising from that statement is: who is the person doing something wrong without knowing it, and who is refusing to listen?
Taken together, Mrs Aisha Buhari’s comments amounted, in my assessment, to something close to a public vote of no confidence in her husband and those around him.
It brought what could ordinarily be considered an internal family or political matter into the public space.
One of the most difficult situations a political leader can face is the perception that his own spouse is publicly opposing him.
What made the situation particularly significant was the cultural and political context surrounding a Hausa-Fulani couple occupying Nigeria’s highest political office.
It raised questions about whether the First Lady felt ignored, sidelined, frustrated or politically powerless.
There was already a public dimension to the tension following President Buhari’s earlier remarks from Germany, in which he said his wife belonged in the “kitchen, the living room and the other room.”
Feminists and critics of perceived misogyny strongly objected to the statement. At a time when women occupy leadership positions across governments, corporations and institutions around the world, critics argued that such language was inappropriate and insensitive.
Given the cultural circumstances surrounding the Presidency, however, there was a possibility that Mrs Aisha Buhari could increasingly be perceived as an ambitious woman attempting to exercise political influence alongside her husband.
She could also be portrayed by political opponents as a threat to his political interests.
The consequences of the President’s response were already becoming visible.
During his visit to Germany, the comment about the “kitchen, the living room and the other room” attracted considerable attention, including during his interaction with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The remark also became a subject of jokes, cartoons and social media memes, while political opponents used it as material for criticism.
Mrs Buhari’s BBC interview similarly provided critics of the administration with additional talking points that could continue to shape political debate.
She could ultimately emerge not simply as a powerful figure within the Villa but as a prominent voice in debates about women’s rights and the role of First Ladies.
It is possible that she could be advised to engage public relations professionals to manage the political fallout, although by then some of the damage may already have been done.
On the other hand, there may be limits to what any presidential media team can achieve once comments have entered the public domain.
Whatever happens, Mrs Aisha Buhari is establishing a reputation as a different kind of First Lady.
Historically, Nigerian Heads of State and Presidents have generally enjoyed strong public support from their wives while in office.
Mrs Maryam Abacha remained publicly supportive of her husband despite the intense criticism directed at his administration, and continued to defend his memory after his death.
Before her, Mrs Maryam Babangida brought considerable visibility and public attention to the Office of the First Lady and established initiatives that became closely associated with her husband’s administration.
Mrs Fati Abubakar maintained a dignified presence behind her husband, while Mrs Margaret Shonekan was similarly regarded as a reserved First Lady during the short tenure of her husband, Chief Ernest Shonekan.
President Olusegun Obasanjo had, as First Lady, the elegant Mrs Stella Obasanjo, who mobilised support and goodwill around her husband.
Turai Yar’Adua, wife of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, was also deeply involved in matters concerning her husband’s Presidency. Her influence became particularly pronounced during the difficult period surrounding the President’s illness and prolonged absence from public view.
Then came Mrs Patience Jonathan, who became one of her husband’s most vocal supporters during his Presidency. Her prominence and some of her public statements generated considerable controversy, but she remained a visible defender of her husband’s political interests.
The pattern is not unique to Nigeria.
First Ladies in other countries have also publicly supported their husbands through periods of intense political pressure. During Bill Clinton’s Presidency, Hillary Clinton remained with him through the controversy surrounding his personal life.
Michelle Obama also became widely recognised for her public support of her husband while establishing a strong independent public identity.
Certain positions require careful grooming and an understanding of the political consequences of public statements.
Tension within a political leader’s home can become a distraction and may create the perception of vulnerability.
Mrs Aisha Buhari may have spoken her mind, but she should be cautious about becoming a permanent in-house critic of her husband’s administration or publicly exposing disagreements that could weaken his political standing.
The extent to which the BBC interview has generated public discussion demonstrates the power of words spoken by people at the centre of government.
How the matter is ultimately resolved between the President, his wife and those around them remains a private family and political matter.
—Reuben Abati
0 Comments