[ANALYSIS]
By Amos Aar
It was meant to be another morning of political discussion on Arise Television, but what began as an interview quickly turned into a heated exchange that has become an intense debate among Nigerians.
The guest, Lere Olayinka, media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, had been responding to questions from the anchors of The Morning Show when the conversation took a different turn after Rufai Oseni took over the questioning.
Olayinka declined to answer Oseni’s question.
Rather than engage the anchor, he made it clear that he would only respond to what he considered reasonable questions from reasonable people, while referring to Oseni’s previous use of the expression “Gbewudani”.
The exchange became increasingly tense, with Olayinka maintaining his position and the anchors insisting that he had agreed to appear on a programme where he would be expected to respond to questions from the presenters.
Eventually, co-anchor Ayo Mairo-Ese brought the interview to an end.
Within hours, the incident had moved from the Arise TV studio to social media, where Nigerians once again found themselves divided into familiar camps.
The exchange adds to ongoing conversations about press freedom, responsibility, and the role of TV anchors in shaping political discourse in Nigeria.
Some applauded Olayinka. Others condemned him, while a third group appeared to believe that both men had crossed the line.
For those who sided with Olayinka, Friday’s incident was not simply about one question. They saw it as a long-overdue pushback against what they consider Rufai Oseni’s excessively confrontational style of interviewing.
A commentator, Charles Kaye Okoye, praised Olayinka for refusing to accept Oseni’s “disrespect for guests”.
According to him, journalists are trained to “grill” guests but not to abuse, curse or mock them.
Another commentator, writing under the name Hapijo, described the incident as a reminder that “journalism is not a licence for rudeness”.
That argument deserves attention because it touches on one of the most difficult questions confronting broadcast journalism today: how does a journalist remain tough, fearless and persistent without becoming unnecessarily rude or abusive?
There is nothing wrong with a journalist asking difficult questions.
In fact, difficult questions are part of the reason political programmes exist.
A journalist interviewing a government official should not be expected to simply read out prepared questions, listen to rehearsed answers and thank the guest for appearing.
The journalist must probe.
He must challenge.
He must ask the second question when the first answer does not address the issue.
He must point out contradictions.
He must demand evidence.
That is journalism.
But there is a difference between challenging an argument and attacking the person making it.
And that distinction appears to be at the heart of the controversy surrounding Oseni.
His supporters see his approach as fearless and uncompromising. They argue that politicians and public officials have become accustomed to friendly interviews and that journalists like Oseni are necessary to hold people in power accountable.
His critics, however, believe that there are moments when the aggressive style crosses into disrespect.
Friday’s confrontation has given that argument fresh fuel. The incident is also not entirely isolated.
Oseni has been involved in several highly publicised exchanges with guests and public figures, some of which have generated similar debates about the boundaries of television interviewing.
In February 2025, presidential aide Daniel Bwala had a heated exchange with him during an interview and accused the anchor of speaking to him in an unacceptable manner.
There have also been disagreements involving Minister of Works Dave Umahi and other prominent guests.
Each incident may have its own circumstances, and it would be unfair to use one confrontation to determine the professional character of a journalist.
But when similar complaints repeatedly emerge from different quarters, they inevitably raise questions about interviewing style.
Still, the other side of Friday’s incident cannot simply be dismissed.
Olayinka was appearing on a programme hosted by three anchors.
He knew that Rufai Oseni was one of them. He had already answered questions from Reuben Abati and Ayo Mairo-Ese before Oseni’s turn came.
The question Oseni reportedly asked concerned the inclusion of former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Betta Edu, in the APC presidential campaign council despite the corruption allegations that had previously surrounded her. That is a legitimate political question.
Olayinka may dislike the person asking it. He may believe Oseni has previously been disrespectful to him or others. He may object to the language used by the anchor on another occasion.
But the question itself remains a question of public interest. This is where Olayinka’s critics have a point.
A media aide whose job is to defend the interests and positions of a senior public official cannot reasonably expect every interviewer to be friendly.
Sometimes the best opportunity to demonstrate confidence in one’s position is to answer the difficult question directly. Refusing to answer can also leave the impression that the guest has no convincing response.
But that does not automatically settle the matter in favour of the interviewer.
There is a legitimate difference between refusing a question because one has something to hide and refusing to engage an interviewer because one believes the interviewer has crossed a professional boundary.
The public cannot know the contents of a person’s mind. What viewers can judge, however, is what happens before the camera. And that is why the “Gbewudani” issue has become important in the debate.
Olayinka’s reaction suggests that his refusal was not simply an attempt to avoid a question. He was making a broader complaint about the manner in which Oseni conducts himself on television.
If an interviewer expects guests to treat him with respect, the argument goes, he must also extend that respect to the people sitting across the table.
That principle should not be controversial.
Journalism does not require a journalist to be polite at the expense of truth.
But neither does journalism require rudeness in the pursuit of truth.
A journalist can tell a politician that his figures are wrong without calling him a liar.
A journalist can challenge a minister’s record without humiliating him.
A journalist can expose contradictions without turning the interview into a personal contest. And a guest can reject a premise without insulting the journalist.
The problem begins when the substance of the interview gives way to a battle of personalities. That is arguably what happened on Friday.
The original political question was quickly overshadowed by the argument over whether Olayinka should answer Oseni and whether Oseni’s previous conduct justified the refusal.
The viewers who tuned in for political accountability were left watching two men argue about each other.
That should concern everyone in journalism.
The microphone is not a weapon.
It is a public trust.The interviewer does not own it, and neither does the guest.
Both are temporarily using it to communicate with the audience.
This is particularly important in a country where television remains one of the major platforms through which citizens receive political information.
When an interview degenerates into insults and personal attacks, the public loses the opportunity to hear substantive answers. But guests must equally understand that public interviews come with responsibilities.
A political spokesperson cannot demand respect while treating every difficult question as an insult.
Democracy requires scrutiny.
Those who speak on behalf of public officials must be prepared to explain, defend and sometimes justify the actions of their principals. If they disagree with an interviewer, they can say so. If they believe a question is unfair, they can explain why.
If they believe an anchor has crossed a professional line, they can complain.
But walking away from a legitimate public-interest question should be a last resort, not the first response to an uncomfortable interview.
Perhaps the most important lesson from the Olayinka-Oseni confrontation is that neither toughness nor courtesy should be treated as the enemy of the other.
Nigeria needs journalists who are bold enough to confront power.
It also needs journalists who understand the difference between confrontation and humiliation. It needs public officials and their representatives who can withstand scrutiny without becoming defensive. And it needs television guests who can disagree with journalists without turning the disagreement into another spectacle.
There is also a responsibility on media organisations. When confrontations involving their anchors repeatedly become the story, the management of such organisations should be willing to examine whether the attention is helping or hurting the credibility of the platform.
A fiery interview may generate clips, comments and millions of social-media views. But ratings and virality should not become substitutes for professional standards.
The most effective interviewer is not necessarily the one who shouts the loudest or dominates the conversation.
It is the one who asks the right question, listens carefully to the answer, spots the contradiction and follows it until the truth becomes clearer to the audience.
That requires confidence, preparation and restraint. And the same restraint should be expected from guests.
Lere Olayinka may have won applause from those who believe Rufai Oseni has gone too far in some of his interviews.
Others will continue to argue that he simply refused to answer an uncomfortable political question and then turned the interview into a personal confrontation. Both arguments can exist.
What should not be lost in the noise is the larger issue.
Journalism is supposed to serve the public, not the ego of the journalist or the pride of the guest.
The interviewer should not become the story.
The guest should not become the victim of a verbal ambush.
And neither should forget the millions of Nigerians sitting behind the television screen who are entitled to hear the questions and, more importantly, the answers.
Friday’s incident may therefore be remembered not because of who won the exchange, but because it once again exposed the thin line between tough journalism and rudeness.
That line is worth protecting.
Because a journalist does not become weak by being professional. And a guest does not become strong simply by refusing to answer.
In the end, the real measure of both men should not be who had the last word.
It should be whether the Nigerian public was better informed when the cameras stopped rolling.
