Ndume: In Support Of Sunday Dare’s Constructive Presidential Communication Approach

Ndume: In Support of Sunday Dare’s Constructive Presidential Communication Approach

By Yusuf Ali

Bayo Onanuga’s response to Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume’s criticism of federal appointments under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has sparked significant debate. Describing Ndume’s concerns as “hypocritical” and “divisive,” Onanuga’s choice of words has raised questions about the tone and substance of the Presidency’s communication strategy. While defending the administration is a key responsibility of any spokesperson, it is equally important to do so with professionalism and evidence-based arguments.

In this context, the approach of Sunday Dare stands out as an example of how such criticisms should be addressed. Instead of resorting to combative language, Dare compiled a list of appointments made by the administration to demonstrate its adherence to fairness and the Federal Character principle.

Even when errors were later identified in the list, Dare promptly apologized, withdrew the flawed document, and committed to providing accurate information. His response showcased humility, accountability, and a focus on facts—a stark contrast to the unnecessary hostility displayed by Onanuga.

The role of a spokesperson is not to escalate tensions but to present the government’s case with clarity and evidence. By labeling criticisms as “hypocritical” or “divisive,” Onanuga risked alienating both the critic and the public. Constructive engagement, as demonstrated by Dare, is far more effective in dispelling misconceptions and reinforcing public trust in the administration.

Sunday Dare’s method also highlights the importance of professionalism in public communication. By addressing criticisms with transparency and taking responsibility for errors, he reaffirmed the government’s commitment to accountability. This approach not only defends the administration’s position but also demonstrates its willingness to listen and improve—a hallmark of good governance.

Constructive criticism is essential for any government to identify gaps and improve. Instead of dismissing concerns, spokespersons should see such feedback as an opportunity to engage, inform, and build trust. Onanuga and others would do well to adopt a less combative tone and focus on presenting evidence and facts to counter criticisms effectively.

The Presidency’s response to public scrutiny should reflect openness, professionalism, and a commitment to addressing concerns with facts, not attacks. For this reason, Sunday Dare’s approach deserves commendation and should serve as a model for government spokespersons at all levels.