Nigeria Content Online

As it happened with the vice presidential candidates March 12, the first presidential debate held on NN24 television station last Friday was a three-man conversation. Present were the flag bearers of the All Nigeria Peoples Party, Action Congress of Nigeria, and the Congress for Progressive Change, Ibrahim Shekaru, Nuhu Ribadu, and Mohammadu Buhari. Missing in action was the candidate of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, Goodluck Jonathan.

It was a development, which angered Olu, my friend and collaborator on many worthy causes, prompting him to post on his Facebook page that other candidates should boycott subsequent debates involving Mr. Jonathan. In Olu’s view, the president was unnecessarily standoffish, and should be allowed to debate himself.

To the discredit of the PDP, there have been conflicting reasons adduced for why the president and his deputy were unable to honour the NN24 invitations.

They range from the multiplicity of requests from various organisations, to the clash with state duties and previously arranged campaign itinerary, to the mode of invitation, to the format adopted for the debates, and to the need to streamline the requests and prioritise on which best serves the party’s interests.

Rather than honour the request from a satellite station, which is available on the pay TV, DSTV, the PDP has settled for the March 29 debate being organised by the Nigerian Election Debate Organisation, an initiative of the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria, the umbrella body sheltering most electronic stations in the country; the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria, which boasts of leading newspaper titles in the land; the Nigerian Guild of Editors; the Nigeria Union of Journalists; and a handful of civil society groups. All the electronic stations will broadcast the debates live, and the newspapers will give generous coverage on subsequent days. It is an opportunity every serious candidate should seize.

To critics like Olu, the PDP was just inventing excuses to shield its disdain for civilised discourse, citing the examples of Mr. Jonathan’s predecessors in office, Olusegun Obasanjo and Umar Yar’adua, who also shunned such invitations. They charge that the PDP boycotted the NN24 debates because it failed in its bid to have an advanced copy of the questions to be asked, and was uncomfortable with the directing minds behind the initiative.

Does this mean that the debates being organised by BON and NPAN will oblige the PDP with advanced questions? “No,” says Feyi Smith, executive secretary of the NPAN, adding, “our role is to defend the best interests of the industry.” Taiwo Allimi, coordinator of the debates, asserts on phone, “That cannot happen. There is no room for it.” I believe them. My position is that people reserve the right to choose the company they keep. If the PDP, National Conscience Party or any other party are convinced the BON-NPAN initiative offers the broadest platform to reach Nigerians via a televised debate, it is within their right to embrace it. Really, it is about cost and benefit.

What does it cost any party to put aside its own campaign arrangement to embrace one floated from outside? What benefits will accrue from it? How many such requests should a party honour? What is the price the party will pay when it gives the impression it has something to hide? Rather than give conflicting reasons, the PDP, if indeed it has nothing to hide, should have stuck to the cogent reason from the outset that it prefers the BON-NPAN platform as giving it the broadest reach.

The March 29 date signals that the debate proper is about to hold. Eight candidates in two batches of four will participate. All previous ones were dress rehearsals. No presidential debate is complete without the participation of the PDP. Mr. Jonathan, as the PDP flag bearer, has to address the barrage of attacks that has come the way of the party, and project his plans for the country. After all, it is his job that all the 17 other candidates want.

I am not disparaging the NN24 effort. For one, it has provided a window of opportunity to examine the credentials of some aspiring office holders. Subsequent efforts will be measured against the standard it has set. Indeed, in tone, carriage, and substance I found the presidential debate a notch higher than the previous parley involving three vice presidential candidates. The questioning was more vigorous. I found Shekarau, articulate and calm in answering questions.

Ribadu’s presentation was somewhat exuberant and Buhari’s disposition understated. I don’t know why the moderator, Kadaria Ahmed, was made to sit down throughout the debate while the aspirants stood. I preferred the previous arrangement where she stood alongside the vice presidential candidates. It makes for better connection. But I enjoyed her questioning and found the warning bell urging the debaters to round off their submissions an improvement on the previous exercise where they were cut off midstream without notice.

I look forward to more conversations involving candidates for public office, for the useful insight they provide; but caution that articulate public speaking does not necessarily translate into competence or effectiveness.