Samuel Marshall
In today’s Nigeria, politics is no longer just debated in parliamentary chambers or behind closed doors. It is performed – live – on national television. Whether on Channels TV, Arise News, TVC, AIT, or SilverBird Television, the nation’s top politicians now regularly take to the screen, not to share developmental policies or national strategies, but to air one another’s dirty laundry.
From former allies-turned-enemies to party defectors and presidential hopefuls, few are spared in this gladiatorial arena where reputations are dismantled before commercial breaks.
One of the most public and ongoing feuds is between former Rivers State governors Rotimi Amaechi and Nyesom Wike. In multiple interviews on Arise TV and Channels, Wike accused Amaechi of looting state funds and abandoning projects – including the controversial monorail scheme. Amaechi, in turn, has described Wike as “vindictive and drunk on power,” alleging financial recklessness and cronyism during his tenure as Minister of the FCT.
Similarly, during an explosive appearance on TVC’s Journalists’ Hangout, Chief Bode George, a chieftain of the PDP, accused Bola Ahmed Tinubu – then APC’s presidential flagbearer – of “running Lagos like a family estate.” The accusations sparked national debate and prompted equally fiery counterattacks from Tinubu’s loyalists, who cited George’s past conviction by the EFCC (later nullified by the Supreme Court) as evidence of hypocrisy.
Dele Momodu, publisher of Ovation Magazine and PDP presidential aspirant, has made a habit of using his media appearances – especially on Arise TV and AIT – to lambast the APC-led federal government. In a now-viral clip, he described the Buhari administration as “a disastrous cocktail of incompetence and arrogance,” while warning Nigerians not to “romanticize recycled failures.” His statements drew sharp responses from APC spokespersons who called him “a serial opportunist with no political depth.”
Even within the same party, battles rage on. On Channels TV’s Sunday Politics, Governor Godwin Obaseki of Edo State openly clashed with his then deputy, Philip Shaibu, accusing him of disloyalty and plotting a power grab. Shaibu fired back on AIT’s Democracy Today, alleging that Obaseki had sidelined him and was running a “one-man government.”
In yet another episode, Femi Fani-Kayode, known for his party-hopping tendencies, described Peter Obi of the Labour Party on SilverBird TV as “a media project with no structure and no understanding of governance.” Obi’s supporters, in turn, unleashed a storm of responses, publishing comparative records of their preferred candidate’s achievements in Anambra State.
Political discourse in Nigeria has become a high-stakes, high-drama series – broadcast live. The lines between journalism, activism, and entertainment have blurred as the nation’s leaders use studio lights as spotlights and microphones as battlegrounds.
But the spectacle comes at a cost.
“These shows often devolve into unmoderated accusation contests,” said Dr. Bala Yahaya of the Nigerian Political Science Association. “Rather than discuss policy or reforms, they spend their airtime rehashing old vendettas or leveling unverifiable allegations.”
A 2025 report by Media Ethics Nigeria found that over 60% of political interviews on major Nigerian networks between January and June 2025 involved direct allegations of corruption, betrayal, or misconduct. Yet fewer than 15% of these accusations led to official investigations, much less convictions.
“The tragedy,” says media critic Adesuwa Ogunleye, “is that truth becomes collateral damage. Everyone is guilty, so no one is accountable.”
As elections inch closer, analysts warn that the cycle of televised mudslinging may intensify, further eroding public trust and distracting from meaningful conversations about development.
As elections inch closer, analysts warn that the cycle of televised mudslinging may intensify, further eroding public trust and distracting from meaningful conversations about development, security, and justice.
While Nigerians tune in, entertained by each new scandal and soundbite, they must also reflect: is this the democratic transparency they asked for—or a televised circus masking institutional failure?
