One event, many narratives: (mis)representations in Nigerian political discourse

6.1 Verbal attacks: discrediting the Buhari government

As polarisation between social groups is inevitable in political discourse, interactions between political actors are wrought with impolite utterances and related behaviour, such as verbal aggression, labelling, name-calling and provocation. Thus, as strong critics of Buhari and his government, Kanu and Fani-Kayode seem to produce utterances that further their ideologies in the texts below.

The attempted citizen’s arrest of Jubril Al-Sudani is a welcome development. I am glad that some Hausa people are now waking up to the reality of Abba Kyari’s horror show that is Jubril Al-Sudani. I commend that young Hausa man in this video that tried to arrest the 45 year old criminal impostor from Sudan. Look at the video again and tell me the young looking boy being paraded by the evil cabal as the late Buhari is not Jubril Al-Sudani. At least, conscientious northerners can now see what we saw since 2017. Jubril’s days are numbered. (Nnamdi Kanu; Daily Post; March 13, 2020)

After former President Buhari’s recovery from a protracted illness, Mr Nnamdi Kanu had, in 2017, claimed that Buhari was dead and that he was replaced by an impostor, Jubril Alsudani. With the text under study, he intends to promote his ideology of Buhari’s identity contestation. To support his claim, he metaphorically depicts the act of impersonation as ‘Abba Kyari’s horror show’. Late Abba Kyari was Buhari’s Chief of Staff, who was influential in the government. Horror show means a frightening theatrical performance that features unnatural happenings. So, Kanu alleges that the purported replacement of Buhari was Kyari’s machination to perpetuate power. Reconstructing Buhari’s identity as Jubril Alsudani appears as a form of misrepresentation. In fact, many unsuspecting Nigerians and, as Gianes (2019) argues, people who share Kanu’s biases still believe that the real Buhari was dead. Furthermore, Kanu deploys other dysphemisms, such as ‘Jubril Al-Sudani’, ‘the 45 year old criminal impostor from Sudan’, ‘the young looking boy’ and ‘the late Buhari’ in order to discredit the former president. Also, the dysphemistic expression ‘being paraded by the evil cabal…’ suggests that the impersonation idea was planned by the influential Kyari and his group. Number game ‘45 year old’ is used strategically to emphasise the age difference between Buhari and the supposed impostor. All these form negative other-representation.

Moreover, the IPOB leader describes Jamilu Gunddare’s action against Buhari as a ‘citizen’s arrest’. This tends to denigrate Buhari and could instigate the public against his government. The portrayal of a ‘citizen’s arrest’ seems to be another form of misrepresentation especially when its ideological basis – Buhari’s identity contestation – is considered. Also, the euphemisms ‘a welcome development’ and ‘that young Hausa man’ portray the supposed action and the social actor (Gunddare) in a positive manner. In addition, describing the ethnic identity and the age of the actor, respectively, distances the text producer from the supposed action and it elevates the actor as a courageous person. Thus, Kanu tries to legitimise the purported action and his claim. However, the metaphor of waking up from sleep, coupled with the determiner some and the temporal deictic element now suggests that many Northerners were unaware of the purported Buhari’s replacement. Also, the expression ‘conscientious northerners’ implies that some are still unconscionable. This tends to demean many Northerners. The expression ‘what we saw in 2017’ is vague. What was seen, probably the purported Buhari’s impersonation, could not be determined. Also, the referent of the pronoun ‘we’ could be the entire IPOB members or all critics of the Buhari Administration probably to achieve solidarity. So, the text producer tries to assert ethno-regional supremacy in knowledge. On his part, Mr Fani Kayode describes the event as an assault as revealed in his text below.

Young man at Argungu today attempting to assault Buhari! That was a close shave. I don’t know what that young man had in mind but this is the first time that I have ever heard of a citizen wanting to ‘greet’ his President by charging at him. Must this Government lie about everything? Must they put a spin on every event? Do they think that we are fools? And by the way, if all he wanted to do was to give ‘his President a handshake’ because he was ‘very excited’ to see him then why to shoot the poor boy in the leg? (Fani Kayode; Daily Post; March 13, 2020)

Argungu Fishing Festival is a funfair and news about it is expected to be positive. But Fani-Kayode claims that former President Buhari was about to be attacked. With the dysphemisms ‘attempting to assault’ and ‘charging at him’, he portrays Gunddare’s action as a potential danger if not averted. This is intensified by the expression ‘a close shave’. Also, he deploys spatial and temporal deictic elements (coupled with the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence) to emphasise his claim. Specifically, ‘charging at him’ in this context implies that Gundarre sought to hurt Buhari because the former President had caused difficulty or annoyance due to his supposed misgovernance. Thus, Fani-Kayode suggests that the young man charged at Buhari because of the former President’s perceived misrule. Considering Fani-Kayode’s status as a strong critic of Buhari at the time of the production of this text, depiction of attack on the former President may be a misrepresentation of the event especially when his narrative is being contested by the affected social actor (Jamilu Gunddare). However, for positive self-representation, Fani-Kayode deploys apparent disclaimer ‘I don’t know what that young man had in mind but this is the first time … a citizen wanting to “greet” his president by charging him’. This strategically absolves him of possible false claim. Also, he employs number game ‘the first time’ to exaggerate the purported act as unusual. Through the expression ‘that I have ever heard…’, he tries to present himself, being an experienced public figure, as an authority to legitimise his claim. In addition, inverted commas in ‘greet’ suggest Fani-Kayode’s disbelief in Buhari media aides’ (re)construction of the event in their rejoinders to social media claims about attack on the former President at Argungu.

Moreover, through ‘us versus they’ dichotomy, Mr Fani-Kayode deploys ideological polarisation between the Nigerian Government and himself (and possibly the opposition party and Nigerians at large). For example, he uses proximal deictic element ‘this’ (‘Must this Government…’) to bring the government closer and emphasises its negative act for public condemnation. In contrast, through third-person plural pronoun, he distances government officials from us (readers, himself and probably the entire Nigerian people as in ‘Do they think that we are fools’) to provoke public outcry. He employs four consecutive rhetorical questions with respective incriminating presuppositions in order to seek audience judgement of the event. In other words, he alleges that the government had lied on some things before; had previously taken us as fools; had previously put a spin on some events; and that the boy was shot in the leg. All these try to demonise the government probably to provoke public outcry. Also, the text producer portrays an ironical situation in that excitement attracts gun shot. This tends to instigate public condemnation.

In addition, with the euphemistic expression ‘the poor boy’, Fani-Kayode deploys ‘positive other-representation’ (van Dijk 2000: 106). That is, he describes the boy as powerless probably to solicit sympathy for him and instigate further condemnation of the government. This is intensified by exaggeration ‘everything’ and ‘every event’. For further emphasis, these are complemented by repetitions of ‘must’, ‘every’ and the implied meaning of ‘lie’ – ‘put a spin’ and ‘to give “his President a handshake”’. Also, the use of inverted commas in the expression ‘to give “his President a handshake” because he was “very excited”’ further signals his disbelief in Buhari media aide’s claim.

6.2 Crisis management: laundering Buhari’s image through rejoinders

Crisis management encompasses all attempts (such as crisis communication and physical activities) to minimise risks or reduce possible damage to personal, government or business reputation after a disaster or relatively unimportant events such as the dramatic event at Argungu Festival under study (Fearn-Banks 2011; Leighton and Shelton 2008). Crisis communication is a discourse type that tries to elevate the status of a person or an organisation in order to maintain positive reputation or to control damage. Elements of crisis communication include ‘first voice’ (a proactive attempt to be the first to disseminate information about a crisis in order to suppress subsequent media stories), expressing empathy towards possible victims and fight against misinformation (Adamolekun and Ogedengbe 2020: 360). Thus, for effective public relations and crisis management, institutional communication must beat other competing stories in established media platforms. For example, Femi Adesina’s rejoinder below appeared on newspapers before any other competing texts, which were already on relatively unreliable social media.

A young man was very excited to see his President at the Argungu fishing festival. He made to walk straight to him for a handshake. Security details prevented it. Now, opposite people are passing it off as an attempt to attack the President. How malicious can some people be! (Femi Adesina; The Cable; March 12, 2020)

Jamilu Gunddare’s action was a disagreeable act of moving towards a row of guests, including former President Buhari, without permission. But many critics of Buhari had portrayed the act as a violent reaction to his perceived bad governance. So, to construct positive representation of Buhari, Femi Adesina euphemises Gunddare’s intended act as ‘very excited to see his President’ and ‘made to walk straight to him for a handshake’. That is, he tries to elevate Gunddare as a gentle man with good intention and his action as agreeable. Also, he describes him as ‘A young man’ probably to exonerate him and regard his act as one of the forgivable features of youthful exuberance. In addition, personalisation of Gunddare’s act through the use of the third-person pronoun in the expression ‘to see his President’ creates a social bond between the young man and Buhari. This tends to present Buhari as a popular leader and it tries to legitimise Gunddare’s attempt to meet the former President. Similarly, likely negative act of the security guards at the event is euphemised as ‘prevented it’. However, through vagueness of the word ‘prevent’, how the act was prevented could not be determined. Also, the pronoun ‘it’ is selected instead of ‘him’ in order to de-emphasise security guards’ actions on the young man (Gunddare). All these try to downplay the allegation that Gunddare was attacked or shot in the process of preventing him. Some of the important features of misrepresentation here are euphemism, exaggeration and vagueness. Gunddare’s action is merely described as a product of delirium, which could happen to any young person. So, Adesina’s narrative may not be the true representation of the event.

In contrast, Adesina employs dysphemisms ‘opposite people’, ‘passing it off as an attempt to attack the President’ and ‘malicious’ to denigrate opposition political figures. So, he dismisses the claim of attempted attack on the former President. That is, Adesina constructs the social actors as different from him; therefore, they are dishonest and wicked for allegedly misleading the public. Also, temporal deictic element ‘Now’ and the exclamation mark are used to emphasise the recency of the act and to express surprise at the swiftness of the opposition’s supposed negative action. In addition, exact number of people referred to by the vague determiner ‘some’ in ‘some people’ could not be determined; thus, it tends to portray the people as insignificant. Lai Mohammed’s text below presents further crisis management strategies.

From what you can see this is a gentleman who has followed the president’s political career for a long time and passionate about him. He breached protocol yesterday, there is no doubt about that. However, all the story about him trying to attack the President is false, even the story that he was shot by the security is false. (Alhaji Lai Mohammed; Premium Times; March 13, 2020.)

To manufacture consent from his audience, Lai Mohammed employs personalisation through second-person pronoun ‘you’ in the expression ‘From what you can see’. Also, the euphemism ‘this is a gentleman who has followed the president’s political career for a long time and passionate about him’ is deployed to construct positive other-representation. This creates a social bond between Gunddare and Buhari in that the young man is depicted as one of the former President’s loyalists. Thus, Buhari is indirectly described as a popular leader. Describing Gunddare as ‘a gentleman’ elevates him as a responsible man and negates any purported attack from him. Proximal indexical ‘this’ is used for the young man to emphasise his closeness to the text producer. For further intensification, this is complemented by a temporal deictic element ‘for a long time’. In other words, it implies that Gunddare actually did nothing wrong at the event. To further obfuscate his reconstruction of the event, Mohammed employs a combination of two denial strategies – apparent concession and disclaimer ‘He breached protocol yesterday… However, all the story … is false…’ In other words, the text producer admits that Gunddare did a wrong thing, but dismisses competing narratives of the event (attempted attack on Buhari and shooting Gunddare in the leg) as false. Also, the euphemism ‘breached protocol’ downplays Gunddare’s negative act. The two denial strategies together with the deployment of euphemism and exaggeration tend to reconstruct Gunddare’s action as harmless. In addition, the temporal deictic element ‘yesterday’ emphasises recency of the negative act and lends credence to the text producer’s narrative.

6.3 Exposé: Gunddare’s personal account

An exposé is a factual account that demystifies a situation or controversy. Gunddare’s breach of protocol at the Argungu Fishing Festival generated controversies; and his personal account, which represents another alternative reality, tries to shed light on the dramatic event. However, this is not immune to reconstruction or misrepresentation. His texts, below, appeared last among the competing texts and might have been influenced by several factors, including persuasion or coercion by the Buhari Government.

Yesterday was a different day for me because as a graduate of Public Administration who graduated with 2nd Class Lower, it took me a lot of courage and dreams to attempt to get to Mr President despite the fact that there was tight security architecture within the venue. I am sorry for the disturbances I caused. It was emotional love I have for Mr President the person whom I know is nurtured with integrity and honesty and he is incorruptible and right driven. (Mohammed Jamilu Gunddare; Premium Times; March 13, 2020)

Gunddare deploys positive self-representation by emphasising his educational attainment. He indirectly presents himself as an authority to legitimise his claim. His efforts to meet former President Buhari are exaggerated as ‘a lot of courage and dreams’ in order to portray his mission as an enviable act. Also, ‘beating security guards to get to Buhari’ presents an ironical situation that further heightens the portrayal of his courage. However, he employs vagueness in the adjective ‘different’ to downplay his actual feeling. It could not be determined whether he is happy or sad. Also, through the depersonalised sentence construction ‘it took me …’ and a euphemistic verb phrase ‘to get to’, he tries to mitigate his wrong doing. By these, the actor is suppressed and his mission is concealed. While the text producer partly admits his wrong act through apology, he employs vagueness, euphemism and a disclaimer in the expression ‘for the disturbances I caused’ to conceal and deny the negative act. That is, the exact form of disturbances could not be determined and the verb cause suggests that the negative act happened unintentionally. This concealment of specific aspects of the event is a feature of misrepresentation. In addition, the temporal deictic element ‘Yesterday’ is topicalised to emphasise the event time.

Furthermore, as a form of evidentiality, Gunddare uses the expression ‘It was emotional love I have for Mr President’ to legitimise his negative act. By this, he argues that he was overcome by emotion. Thus, he tends to appeal to pity. This is complemented by the use of a cognitive verb ‘know’, which suggests personal knowledge of the former President and existing social bond between them. Also, he deploys positive evaluative expression ‘nurtured with integrity and honesty and he is incorruptible and right driven’, to construct positive other-representation in order to elevate Buhari and to legitimise his action. His exposé continues below.

… Even if I died yesterday I would have been contented that I have achieved my mission to move close to Mr President and touch him one on one. You know that emotional love can divert and taint your total faculty of reasoning and that was what really happened yesterday. … Please, I am alive, the DSS did not torture me, nobody has tortured me apart from what happened at the venue when I was forced to the car. (Mohammed Jamilu Gunddare; Premium Times; March 13, 2020)

Through exaggeration, Gunddare presents his mission as a worthy act and Buhari as a popular leader. That is, he portrays ‘moving close to and touching Buhari’ as ‘my mission’, a lifetime ambition, which is worth dying for. Also, as he further argues that he is overcome by emotion, he tends to appeal to public sympathy. In addition, he tries to manufacture consent from the audience through direct address strategy by using second-person pronoun ‘you’ and ‘your’ as in ‘You know’ and ‘taint your total faculty’. However, while he denies any attack on him, he deploys a vague euphemism ‘what happened at the venue’ to downplay negative act of the security guards, and by extension, negative act of the Buhari Administration. Also, the passive construction ‘when I was forced to the car’ conceals the identity of the actor. That is, we could not determine who forced Gunddare to the car. This tends to conceal any negative act of the government against Gunddare. Thus, the exaggeration of his emotional state and concealment of some specific details about the event form a part of misrepresentation and Gunddare’s narrative could not serve as the absolute truth of the event.