I was watching an interview conducted by Mehdi Hasan with Daniel Bwala. Mehdi Hasan is a journalist with Al Jazeera. He is based in the UK and is a British-American journalist. He was born in 1979. Daniel Bwala, from available reports, was born around 1975. So they are people young enough to be my children.
During the interview, Mehdi Hasan held Daniel Bwala by the jugular, metaphorically speaking. He kept confronting him with statistics and evidence. Each time Bwala struggled to answer, he would try to compare Nigeria with America or Nigeria with the UK, but Hasan kept pressing him with more facts and figures.
This is very different from the kind of interviews we often see in Nigerian media. In Nigeria, a megalomaniacal minister or governor will sit on a chair like a throne, after drinking whisky, and begin to talk carelessly. Many journalists, because of the brown envelopes they receive, will simply nod their heads and agree with whatever is said. They do not challenge falsehoods because they fear their stations might be closed down or that they might be arrested.
But this particular journalist did not spare him.
Now, Daniel Bwala is supposed to be a brilliant lawyer. Some reports say he was born in Canada. Others say he studied law in the UK, possibly at the University of Coventry, and that he has run his own law chambers. With that kind of exposure, one would expect him to be more articulate and more careful when answering questions.
There were moments when he tried to defend himself and the interviewer conceded a little. But the most embarrassing aspect of the interview was when Bwala denied statements that he had previously made—statements for which there were video recordings and dates.
The interviewer would present the video evidence, and Bwala would say:
“On my honour, I never said it.”
He denied statements about political accusations he had made earlier. Each time the evidence was shown, he still insisted that he had never said those things.
It was painful to watch.
Imagine saying something publicly under pressure, and when confronted with clear evidence, you still deny it. If Satan himself had watched that interview, he might have been ashamed—because Satan is described as the father of lies.
That behaviour reflects a troubling aspect of politics in many places: the willingness to deny obvious facts even when evidence is presented.
In our country, many politicians behave this way. If a woman accuses someone of harassment, the first reaction is often denial. They deny ever knowing the woman. They deny everything.
Some even make shameful statements to defend themselves.
This kind of behaviour reflects a deeper problem in our political culture.
I jokingly described the behaviour in the interview with some made-up terms.
The first term is “Balamnia.”
Balamnia is a condition where a person suddenly forgets everything they have said in the past when confronted with evidence.
You show them the video.
They say they were not there.
You show them the statement.
They say they never made it.
That is what I call Balamnia.
The second term is “Balamic.”
When someone is publicly roasted with facts and statistics—like a barbecue—that process is what I jokingly called Balamic.
The interviewer literally roasted the man with evidence, statistics, and recorded statements.
Another term I mentioned is what I jokingly called “Unkitanisation.”
In this context, it refers to the process of turning a political opponent into someone who later returns to the same person they once criticised. It is like the biblical illustration of a dog returning to its vomit.
Politics can sometimes have that strange effect on people.
Then I contrasted that behaviour with something I jokingly called “Omokrinisation.”
I used that term in reference to people like Reno Omokri. When you confront him with something he said before, he might admit it. He may explain that circumstances have changed. He may defend himself and move on.
At least there is acknowledgement before explanation.
But what we saw in that interview was pure denial in the face of evidence.
Many politicians behave this way, and it is dangerous for society.
The writer Franz Kafka once said that if you have one idiot, you have one idiot. If you have two idiots, you have two idiots. But when you have ten thousand idiots together, you might have a political party.
Now, an idiot is not necessarily an uneducated person. Daniel Bwala is educated and trained as a lawyer.
An idiot, in the sense I am using it, is someone who does things that harm society—even when they gain nothing from it—and they do not care.
So the four humorous terms I mentioned are:
- Balamnia – when someone denies what they clearly said, even when evidence is presented.
- Balamic – when someone is roasted publicly with facts and statistics.
- Unkitanisation – when a political opponent eventually returns to the same person they once criticised.
- Omokrinisation – when someone admits what they said but explains it away and moves on.
Unfortunately, many politicians behave in ways that suggest serious intellectual and moral instability.
It is dangerous for citizens to follow politicians blindly.
I have often said that a Nigerian politician can even make a true prophet look like a liar, because politics can twist narratives and realities.
Dr. Charles Apoki is still my name.
Today I decided to have a little fun while discussing serious issues.God bless you.
