A critique of Sunday Dare’s attack on Bala Mohammed: Rhetoric over substance

Sunday Dare’s article, “Gov. Bala Mohammed is Playing Irresponsible Politics,” serves not as a reasoned critique of Governor Bala Mohammed’s actions, but rather as a thinly veiled defense of President Bola Tinubu’s administration and a personal attack on a political opponent. While ostensibly addressing Mohammed’s criticisms of the Tinubu administration’s tax reforms, the piece relies heavily on ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated claims, and a deflection of legitimate concerns to avoid engaging with the substance of the debate.

The central argument, that Governor Bala Mohammed is engaging in “irresponsible politics” by criticizing the tax reforms, rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. Dare asserts that President Tinubu’s administration is solely focused on development and the well-being of Nigerians, a claim unsupported by evidence. While the administration may claim this focus, the actual policies and their implementation require scrutiny. Dare’s dismissal of Mohammed’s concerns as stemming from “pseudo-activists” and “later-day crusaders” is a blatant attempt to discredit the opposition without addressing their specific arguments. This rhetorical tactic is designed to silence dissent by associating it with negative stereotypes, rather than engaging with the substance of the criticism. The lack of concrete examples of Mohammed’s “irresponsible politics” further weakens Dare’s claim. He fails to provide specific instances of actions by Mohammed that are demonstrably harmful to the people of Bauchi State or that obstruct national development.

The article attempts to shift the focus from the controversial tax reforms to the performance of Governor Bala Mohammed in Bauchi State. Dare demands accountability from Mohammed regarding the state’s poverty levels, implying a direct causal link between Mohammed’s governance and the state’s economic challenges. This argument is presented without evidence. Dare presents no comparative data on poverty levels in Bauchi State under previous administrations, nor does he acknowledge the complex socio-economic factors that contribute to poverty beyond the control of any single governor. This tactic cleverly shifts the blame from the national government’s policies to the state level, absolving the federal administration of responsibility.

Dare’s assertion that President Tinubu is a “listening leader” who believes in “the institutions of state” is also demonstrably false given the context of the tax reforms. The swift and somewhat opaque manner in which these reforms were introduced, bypassing significant public consultation and debate, directly contradicts the idea of a government prioritizing inclusive decision-making. The suggestion that critics should simply utilize the “legislative process” ignores the reality that this process can be manipulated and controlled by the ruling party, potentially silencing dissenting voices. This framing conveniently dismisses legitimate concerns as mere attempts to “stampede” or “abort” the process, thus further solidifying the narrative of the administration as being unjustly targeted.

The article’s concluding paragraphs rely on unsubstantiated optimism. Dare claims Nigerians are already seeing the positive impacts of the Tinubu administration’s reforms, yet provides no specific evidence to support this assertion. The statement that “better outcomes will continue to manifest” reads as a mere declaration of faith rather than a reasoned prediction based on tangible evidence. This appeal to future benefits ignores the immediate and potential long-term negative consequences of the tax reforms that are currently fueling public discontent.

Furthermore, the article’s tone is highly aggressive and dismissive. The repeated use of phrases like “irresponsible politics,” “vanishing image,” and “blustering” reveals a clear intent to discredit Mohammed rather than to engage in constructive dialogue. This combative approach undermines the credibility of the argument, suggesting a lack of confidence in the merits of the administration’s policies. Instead of presenting a reasoned counter-argument to Mohammed’s critiques, Dare resorts to personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.

In conclusion, Sunday Dare’s article fails to provide a compelling defense of President Bola Tinubu’s tax reforms. Instead of addressing the substantive concerns raised by Governor Bala Mohammed, the article relies on ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated claims, and a strategic deflection of responsibility. The piece demonstrates a clear bias towards the Tinubu administration, prioritizing political expediency over a reasoned and evidence-based discussion of important national policy. The lack of factual basis, the aggressive tone, and the manipulative rhetorical strategies employed render the article’s argument unconvincing and ultimately ineffective. A more responsible approach would have involved a detailed response to the specific concerns raised by Mohammed, supported by factual evidence and a willingness to engage in open and constructive debate.