The media team of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticised presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala over his recent television interview and comments on national issues.
In a statement issued in Abuja on March 7, 2026, by Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president’s camp accused Bwala of attempting to elevate what it described as falsehoods through repeated public statements.
The statement said Bwala’s political trajectory had been characterised more by shifting loyalties than by firm convictions, adding that his recent remarks had prompted concern within the opposition camp.
According to the statement, Bwala had at one time approached the Atiku Media Team requesting that a press statement be issued claiming that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his associates were threatening his life. The request, it said, was declined because the team considered it a frivolous attempt at political theatre.
Atiku’s media office also dismissed Bwala’s portrayal of his interview with broadcaster Mehdi Hasan as an act of intellectual courage, argued instead that the exchange exposed contradictions between his past criticisms of the Tinubu administration and his current role defending it.
The statement claimed that during the interview, Bwala struggled to reconcile earlier comments he had made about the government with his present position and resorted to dismissing criticisms from organisations regarding governance failures as “fake news.”
It further criticised the presidential spokesman for reportedly describing some of his past remarks about the administration as “politics,” insisting that serious national issues such as insecurity and the loss of lives should not be trivialised.
The Atiku camp also questioned the credibility of Bwala’s defence of the administration, noted that appearing on multiple media platforms does not necessarily strengthen arguments that it described as inconsistent.
The statement additionally faulted Bwala’s use of language during the interview, accused him of demonstrating poor command of English grammar while attempting to defend the government.
It concluded that public officials would ultimately be judged by history based on the consistency of their positions and the credibility of their statements in the public arena.
