By Dr. James Bwala
Political disagreement is an unavoidable feature of democracy. In a plural society such as Nigeria, citizens, journalists, activists, and politicians must be free to question government policies and criticize public officials. However, freedom of expression is not a license for personal abuse, insults, reckless provocation, or the deliberate destruction of public discourse. Democratic freedom becomes meaningful only when it is exercised with responsibility, restraint, and respect for the dignity of others. The VP’s criticism of the former vice president and ADC presidential candidate is healthy and rhetorically accepted in politics, which has never resulted in insults or abuse, as Kashim Shettima still holds Turaki in high esteem.
However, the conduct of Dino Melaye toward Vice President Kashim Shettima provides an important example of how politically abusive rhetoric can degenerate into personal hostility. His recent insults on VP Shettima’s parents in the name of retaliation for Shettima’s criticism of Atiku go beyond political expressions. Before, during, and after the 2023 general election, Melaye was frequently associated with harsh attacks and inflammatory comments directed at Shettima. Rather than focusing consistently on policies, competence, governance, and the national interest, his rhetoric often appeared designed to ridicule and provoke. Such conduct does not strengthen democracy. Instead, it lowers the quality of political debate and encourages citizens to measure politicians by their ability to insult opponents rather than by the seriousness of their ideas. Dino Melaye has fallen into that category of measurement, which reflects poorly on both him and the former VP, who is his principal.
A mature political system requires leaders and citizens to understand the distinction between criticism and abuse or insults. Criticism addresses actions, policies, decisions, and public records. Abuse or insults attack personality, identity, dignity, or private character. A politician may legitimately question the wisdom of a government program, challenge an election strategy, or demand accountability from an elected official. But repeatedly using contemptuous language against a public servant contributes little to national development. It may attract attention, but attention is not the same as influence, and provocation is not the same as leadership.
Kashim Shettima’s response to personal attacks as vice president has often been presented as an example of restraint. Instead of responding to every insult with another insult, he has maintained a public posture of calm and has reportedly referred to Melaye as “my brother.” That response reflects an important principle of democratic leadership, which is lacking in the type of leadership ADC and Dino Melaye are trying to sell to Nigerians. In a democratic state, public office requires emotional discipline, and both Dino Melaye and his co-travellers repeatedly show their kind of onions in the political transactional appeals. A person in a high political position cannot afford to be controlled by every provocation. The vice president’s restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. On the contrary, the ability to remain composed under pressure is a sign of confidence, self-control, and respect for the office one occupies. The angry birds style of political movement by Atiku and Dino Melaye is a kind that Nigerians are praying never to witness, and they have so exposed themselves as unsellable materials ahead of the 2027 general elections coming with insults and abuse and not issues that Nigerians want to hear from people who think they are better.
Nigeria’s political environment is already burdened by ethnic suspicion, religious tension, misinformation, and deep partisan divisions. When prominent politicians use abusive language, they risk increasing these problems. Their words are not private expressions; they are amplified through television, newspapers, social media, and political rallies. Supporters may imitate their behavior, transforming political disagreement into personal hostility. In extreme cases, reckless rhetoric such as demonstrated by Dino Melaye at every rally can encourage harassment, intimidation, and violence. Therefore, public figures have a special obligation to communicate carefully, even when they are angry or politically disadvantaged.
The contrast between the response of a restrained administration and the political behavior of its critics also deserves attention. Under previous administrations, some opposition figures engaged in dramatic acts of protest, confrontation, and public defiance. Such actions may have been intended to demonstrate courage or resistance, but they often created scenes that distracted from the substantive issues being raised. Jumping from moving vehicles, evading security agencies, or turning political conflict into spectacle may produce dramatic images, yet it does not necessarily advance democratic accountability. Effective opposition should be bold, but it should also be lawful, strategic, and intellectually serious.
The present administration has been described by its supporters as more tolerant of dissent and more willing to allow criticism than some previous governments. Whether one agrees fully with that assessment or not, the principle remains valuable: democratic governments must tolerate peaceful opposition. Political leaders should not use state institutions to silence critics merely because the criticism is uncomfortable. At the same time, those who enjoy the protection of democratic freedom must use that freedom responsibly. It is contradictory to demand free speech while treating freedom as permission to demean others without consequence.
Democracy exposes character as much as it protects rights. When people are given the freedom to speak, their words reveal their judgment, temperament, values, and understanding of leadership as demonstrated by Dino Melaye. A politician who consistently relies on mockery and personal attacks may unintentionally expose a weakness in political maturity. Public life requires patience, strategic thinking, empathy, and the ability to persuade people who do not already agree. Insults may energize a loyal audience, but they rarely build broad national coalitions. They may win applause at a rally while damaging the speaker’s credibility among undecided citizens.
This is why political actors should be willing to change their approach when circumstances change. If someone has spent years attacking another public figure and receives restraint rather than retaliation, the sensible response should be reflection. Political disagreements do not have to become permanent personal wars. A politician can acknowledge that an earlier approach was excessive, withdraw offensive statements, and seek a more constructive relationship. Such a step would not necessarily represent surrender. It could demonstrate wisdom, emotional maturity, and an understanding that politics is temporary while national relationships endure.
The future of Nigerian politics should not be determined by who shouts the loudest or insults the most effectively. It should be determined by ideas, integrity, competence, service, and the ability to unite people. The 2027 general election will provide another opportunity for citizens to judge politicians on their records and conduct. Candidates who seek leadership must demonstrate more than visibility. They must show that they can develop practical policies, respect institutions, communicate responsibly, and work with opponents when national interests require cooperation.
Political ambition alone does not qualify anyone for leadership. A person may be popular, outspoken, or highly visible and still lack the temperament required to govern. Leadership demands the capacity to listen, negotiate, manage disagreement, and accept criticism without responding recklessly. It also requires an understanding that the dignity of public office is greater than the ego of the person occupying it. Those who cannot control their words in opposition may struggle to control power in government.
It is therefore reasonable for voters to examine not only what politicians promise but also how they behave. Do they respect opponents? Do they offer evidence when making accusations? Do they apologize when they are wrong? Do they promote peace or deepen division? Do they use democratic institutions or attempt to undermine them? These questions are essential because political behavior during opposition often provides clues about how an individual may behave in power.
The relationship between Dino Melaye and Kashim Shettima also illustrates the importance of political hierarchy and constitutional order. In a democracy, officeholders derive authority from the Constitution and the electoral process, not from personal popularity or theatrical performance. A vice president occupies a nationally recognized constitutional office, while political disagreements do not erase the authority attached to that office. Citizens and politicians may criticize the vice president, but they must distinguish lawful criticism from contempt for the constitutional structure.
This does not mean that a vice president is beyond criticism. On the contrary, every public official must remain accountable. Shettima, like any other officeholder, should be questioned about government policies, economic conditions, security, appointments, and national development. But accountability is strongest when it is based on facts and clear arguments. Personal hostility weakens criticism because it allows the target to dismiss serious concerns as mere political attacks. A critic who wants to be taken seriously must focus on issues and present evidence.
Ultimately, the responsibility for improving Nigerian political culture belongs to both politicians and citizens. Politicians must reduce inflammatory language, avoid spreading unverified claims, and reject the temptation to turn every disagreement into a personal battle. Citizens, in turn, must stop rewarding abusive behavior with automatic applause. Media organizations should also distinguish between genuine political analysis and entertainment built around insults. Social media users must learn that virality is not proof of truth or leadership quality.
The most persuasive political voice is not necessarily the loudest one. It is the voice that combines courage with reason, conviction with courtesy, and criticism with solutions. Nigeria needs leaders who can disagree without hatred, compete without destroying institutions, and defend their positions without humiliating others. Political opponents are not enemies of the state, and an election is not a declaration of permanent war.
Dino Melaye’s public conduct should therefore be understood as a warning about the dangers of unrestrained political rhetoric. Persistent mockery and personal attacks may reveal more about the speaker than about the person being attacked. If Nigerian democracy is to mature, politicians must learn that freedom of expression carries an accompanying duty of responsibility. Those who misuse democratic space may discover that their words expose their limitations rather than advance their ambitions.
The 2027 election will come and go, as every election does. What will remain is the record each politician creates through words, decisions, relationships, and service. Political power is temporary, but reputation can endure. For anyone seeking national leadership, the path to credibility is not through endless provocation. It is through discipline, humility, policy competence, respect for constitutional authority, and a genuine commitment to the Nigerian people.
Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
About the Author
