When the Messenger Kills the Message

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

Have you ever wondered why our politics and public debate in Nigeria keep mistaking the envelope for the letter? Call it human failing, a Nigerian specialty – or simply bad manners. We are told, repeatedly and with admirable moral clarity, to separate the message from the messenger. The mantra sounds tidy: strip away the personality, the peccadillo, the partisan dress-sense, and hold the idea up to the light. But the truth – messy, stubborn and unhelpful to soundbites – is that we are not machines; we are people with memories, quarrels, grudges and a taste for theatricality. In our public square, therefore, the courier often gets more attention than the cargo.

There are practical reasons for this. Messengers carry motive like perfume: sometimes sweet, sometimes overpowering. When a known partisan advances an argument, readers do a quick forensic check – not of evidence, but of antecedents. If an article by “an old customer” of party A arrives with florid praise for policy X, many will reach for the trash-bin before the coffee finishes brewing. Conversely, if an unexpected voice – say a celebrity with a history of stunts – counsels restraint or civic responsibility, the immediate response is to mock the preacher rather than examine the sermon. We laugh at Bobrisky giving life lessons, not because one cannot glimpse sincerity in the performance, but because the familiarity of the performer becomes the thing we judge first; the message is left to cough for air in the shadow of its host.

This habit is not merely insolent; it is corrosive. In a country where public trust is in short supply, good ideas need careful nurturing, not reflexive dismissal. When the average Nigerian opens an opinion piece, a WhatsApp forward or a trending thread, the first question is not “Is it true?” but “Who sent it?” That is a problem, because ideas – however inconvenient – deserve interrogation on their merits.

Yet, the reverse is also true: messengers matter. A track record of mendacity, hypocrisy or partisan rancour is a legitimate lens through which to assess new claims. The key is balance: interrogate the message, yes – but do not ignore the messenger’s track record where it genuinely affects credibility.

The digital age complicates this further. Nigeria’s online population continues to swell; recent analyses show social media and internet adoption rising steadily across 2024-2025, with tens of millions of Nigerians now connecting, debating and sometimes combusting online. That mass of users has made platforms the new agora (a Grecian arena) – quick, noisy and prone to distortion.

At the same time, the very terrain of conversation has shifted. Long-form argument is being chewed into bite-sized tropes for X (formerly Twitter) threads, WhatsApp voice-note rants and TikTok two-minute sermons – a format that rewards punchlines and caricature over patient reasoning. The platform formerly known as Twitter now carries the burdens of rapid rebrand and cultural reconfiguration; the medium has changed how we receive messages and how quickly we judge the messenger.

What does this mean for serious public debate? First, it demands intellectual charity married to scepticism. Charity, because ideas from unlikely quarters should be weighed, not jeered off the podium; and scepticism, because we must recognise that the context of a message – who benefits, what history accompanies the speaker – matters. We must be able to say “this point is useful” while also saying “this advocate has a vested interest.” Those are not mutually exclusive judgments; they are part of mature critique.

Second, institutions and public intellectuals must work harder to inoculate discourse against the twin viruses of ad hominem and cynicism. The aim is not to manufacture saints; it is to create forums in which accountability and openness are prized. Imagine, for example, a debate culture where rebuttals are footnoted, where claims demand sources and where the habit of dismissing a piece because of its author’s affiliation is seen as lazy rather than clever. That is aspirational, of course – but aspiration is the only antidote to defeatism.

Third, the messenger’s reputation should be a valid data point, not a trump card. When a politician who has consistently broken promises now offers economic advice, citizens are right to be suspicious. But that suspicion should ignite investigation, not automatic rejection. Conversely, when a social-media celebrity advocates for a civic cause and mobilises real effort, we should be prepared to acknowledge impact even if we snigger at the medium.

We must also say a word about humour and sarcasm, those beloved instruments of Nigerian public life. They are necessary; satire frees the air. But when sarcasm becomes the primary lens through which we digest policy, we risk reducing civic discourse to Awada Kerikeri theatre. Laugh at the absurdities – yes – but do not let laughter become an excuse for inattention.

Finally, the remedy is partly structural and partly cultural. Structurally, journalists, editors and platforms should enforce clearer standards of evidence and context: label opinion, source claims and correct errors visibly. Culturally, citizens must practise a small but powerful discipline – read past the byline. If that sounds naive in a world of 24-hour outrage, remember that the alternative is chatter without change. The mortar of nation-building is not clever put-downs; it is patient work, messy compromise and the willingness to listen when listening is the hardest thing to do.

So here is a modest, perhaps unfashionable, plea: let us give the message a fair hearing and the messenger a fair accounting. We can be sceptical without being scornful; we can be discerning without being dismissive. If the messenger has earned our mistrust, hand that mistrust a reason; if the message deserves attention, let it have that chance even when it comes wrapped in a dubious sender.

We are, after all, a people capable of grand generosity and stubborn pettiness in equal measure. If we want a public conversation that bends toward solutions, we must stop treating every courier as the enemy of the post and start treating every idea as a candidate for the national interest – judged on the merits, tested by facts, and, when necessary, rejected with reasons rather than ridicule.