LEADERSHIP AND THE BURDEN OF COMMUNICATION (1)

“Mr. President, Your Language and Body Language Are Dangerous to Democracy”

By Citizen Bolaji O. Akinyemi

Leadership carries a burden that power alone cannot bear: the burden of communication.

A leader does not speak merely as an individual. His words carry the weight of his office. They are heard by citizens, interpreted by institutions, amplified by the media, repeated by political followers and, sometimes, translated into action by those who believe they are defending the leader.

This is why the language and body language of a President matter.

At a moment when Nigeria is experiencing deep political anxiety, institutional distrust and growing tension among competing political interests, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must recognise that his words and actions are being watched far beyond the immediate circumstances in which they are uttered.

The President recently responded to concerns raised by the Catholic Bishops regarding the state of Nigeria’s democracy and the treatment of opposition parties. In defending his administration, he reportedly emphasised his belief in allowing institutions to function independently and according to the law.

That is the language Nigerians want to hear.

Democracy requires institutions that are professional, impartial and independent of partisan control. The President should therefore be commended whenever he affirms institutional independence.

But leadership is tested when words and actions appear to communicate different messages.

If, as reported, the President intervened and directed the reversal of the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Nigerians are entitled to ask a simple constitutional question: If an institution is independent, where does executive intervention in its operational decisions begin and end?

This is not an accusation against the President. It is a question about the architecture of democratic governance.

The President reportedly also questioned the timing of the EFCC action, coming as it did close to the Osun governorship election. That concern itself deserves consideration. Any action by a state institution capable of affecting the political environment around an election must be handled with extraordinary sensitivity.

But there is an even bigger question:

Would the intervention have been necessary if the same action had occurred outside an election period?

The answer matters because democracy cannot be governed by political convenience.

The real issue, therefore, is not simply whether the account freeze was right or wrong. It is whether Nigerians can confidently believe that the institutions of state operate according to law, evidence and established procedure—not according to who is affected, whose election is approaching, or who occupies the highest office in the land.

This is where presidential communication becomes critical.

The President must understand that body language can sometimes speak louder than presidential speeches.

When a President says institutions are independent but appears to intervene in their decisions, the public may receive two different messages. When he speaks of the rule of law but political actors perceive selective application of state power, suspicion grows. When his administration says opposition parties are free to operate but political defections are celebrated with the machinery of government prominently displayed, citizens are left to interpret the symbolism.

And perception matters in democracy.

The President therefore has a responsibility to become the model of clarity.

Nigeria does not need a President whose words leave citizens guessing about what he means. We need a President whose language removes ambiguity, whose actions reinforce his words, and whose body language strengthens—not weakens—the confidence of citizens in democratic institutions.

This is particularly important because political language has consequences.

President Tinubu himself understands the power of political language. During the build-up to the 2023 election, he was widely reported as saying that political power must be “fought for,” “grabbed,” “snatched” and taken away. Whatever the context or intended meaning, such language illustrates the danger of rhetoric that can be interpreted as legitimising political combat without sufficient regard for democratic restraint.

Words spoken in political campaigns do not disappear when the campaign ends.

They become part of the political culture.

And this is the burden of leadership.

If the President uses combative language, political followers may become combative. If he communicates ambiguity, institutions and citizens may interpret the ambiguity according to their interests. If he models restraint, restraint becomes more possible in the wider political environment.

The President must therefore be more than the chief executive of the Federal Republic. He must be the chief example of democratic conduct.

This is why I am concerned about the current national conversation.

The concern is not limited to President Tinubu. It is about what political leaders are teaching Nigerians through their words.

From the Presidency to religious leaders, from governors to senators, from activists to traditional institutions, Nigeria is experiencing a dangerous season in which words increasingly have the capacity to inflame ethnic, religious and political passions.

That is why this conversation must continue.

The question is no longer simply what did the leader say?

We must also ask:

What did the leader’s words make possible?

What did his body language communicate?

What did his followers hear?

And what kind of society is his communication helping to build?

I believe President Tinubu can still set a different standard.

He can make his administration a model of institutional restraint. He can speak with greater clarity. He can distinguish between political strategy and constitutional responsibility. He can ensure that the independence of institutions is not merely proclaimed but visibly protected.

Nigeria needs leadership that lowers the temperature of the nation.

We need leaders who know that not every political disagreement requires a political war, not every opponent is an enemy, and not every victory must come at the expense of institutional credibility.

Mr. President, your language matters.

Your body language matters.

Your example matters.

History will not judge your administration only by the roads constructed, the policies enacted or the economic figures recorded. It will also judge whether, under your watch, Nigerians became more confident in democracy or more cynical about it.

Leadership is not merely the power to speak. It is the responsibility to communicate in a manner worthy of the office one occupies.

And in this season of national uncertainty, Nigeria needs the President to lead by example.

The burden of communication belongs first to those who wield the greatest power.