Daniel Bwala and Nigeria’s policy communication gap

Communication occupies a central place in governance. In democratic systems, the media serves as the bridge through which communication flows between the government and the governed. At the heart of this communication lies public policy. Government communication, at its core, is about explaining policies: how they are designed, why they are necessary, and how they affect citizens.

Public policies are the instruments of governance. They are the building blocks through which governments translate political mandates into concrete actions that shape national life. Consequently, the effectiveness of government communication is often measured by how clearly and convincingly these policies are articulated to the public.

When governments lack a coherent policy framework, or the political will and institutional capacity to implement their policies effectively, they often resort to propaganda or defensive communication strategies. Rather than engaging citizens through transparent policy explanations, communication becomes reactive, confrontational, or personality-driven.

The recent public appearance of Daniel Bwala, appointed as a policy communication adviser to the Nigerian president, once again highlights the gaps in how national policies are communicated to both domestic and international audiences. It also reflects a deeper weakness within Nigeria’s political culture: the persistent shift from policy-centered discourse to personality-driven political debate.

During the 2023 election cycle, Daniel Bwala was widely known for his aggressive media engagements, where political opponents were frequently attacked at a personal level. His interventions often focused less on policy alternatives proposed by candidates such as Atiku Abubakar and more on direct attacks against figures like Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Peter Obi.

However, having now been appointed to a role specifically tied to policy communication, the expectations are fundamentally different. The role of a policy communication adviser is not to function as a political attack dog, but to articulate government policies, clarify policy intentions, and provide credible explanations that strengthen public understanding of governance decisions.

In a recent interview with an Al Jazeera journalist, Bwala had an opportunity to demonstrate this transition from partisan commentator to policy communicator. Ideally, his responses should have focused on explaining government policies and contextualising them within the administration’s broader governance agenda.

Instead, the interview appeared to drift away from substantive policy explanation. At moments where policy clarification was required, the discussion veered toward political defensiveness. In doing so, Bwala missed an opportunity to reinforce the administration’s policy narrative and instead risked reinforcing perceptions of political messaging rather than policy communication.

This challenge becomes even more evident when engaging international journalists accustomed to rigorous policy interrogation. While domestic media environments sometimes accommodate political rhetoric, international platforms demand clarity, evidence, and policy substance. Interviews with seasoned journalists such as Mehdi Hassan often expose weaknesses in communication strategies that rely heavily on rhetoric rather than structured policy articulation.

More broadly, the episode highlights the urgent need for the current government to streamline its communication architecture. Effective governance communication requires trained professionals who understand the dynamics of media systems, the structure of policy discourse, and the expectations of both domestic and international audiences.

Public policy communication is a specialized field. It involves translating complex government decisions into clear narratives that citizens can understand and evaluate. Public policy itself refers to the guiding principles through which governments address critical aspects of national life—security policy, environmental policy, education policy, rural development policy, poverty alleviation strategies, infrastructure development, and population policy, among others.

Communicating these policies requires discipline, technical knowledge, and strategic messaging. It is not merely about defending government actions but about helping citizens understand the rationale, objectives, and expected outcomes of those actions.

For Daniel Bwala, the path forward is clear. If he refocuses his public engagements on policy explanations rather than political confrontation, he can gradually redefine his role and contribute meaningfully to the government’s communication framework. Doing so would not only strengthen the credibility of government messaging but also help elevate Nigeria’s political discourse toward substantive policy debate.

In the end, governance is judged not only by the policies governments implement but also by how effectively those policies are communicated to the people they are meant to serve.

 

.Ikem holds a PhD in Development Communication, specialising in Public Policy