By Saheed Fuhad
There is a question Nigeria’s journalism profession must confront honestly: When those entrusted with public power refuse to answer difficult questions, should journalists remain polite spectators, or should they become more persistent, more probing and, where necessary, adversarial? In a healthy democracy, journalism is not supposed to be a public-relations department for government. It is not the job of a journalist to make powerful people comfortable.
The journalist’s obligation is to the public. This distinction has become increasingly important in Nigeria, where corruption, abuse of public resources, poor governance, political patronage and official evasiveness remain recurring features of public life.
This is where adversarial journalism becomes important. Adversarial journalism is a style of journalism in which reporters actively challenge people in positions of power, interrogate their claims, test their evidence, expose contradictions and refuse to accept official explanations without scrutiny. It is sometimes mistaken for rudeness, aggression or hostility. By definition, it is none of these things. At its best, adversarial journalism is journalism that understands that power must be questioned. Journalism is not supposed to be comfortable. The traditional image of the journalist as a neutral observer can sometimes be misleading. A journalist covering a powerful politician who says, for example, that billions of naira have been spent on a project should not merely report the politician’s statement. The journalist should ask: Where is the evidence? How much was appropriated? How much was released? What was actually constructed? Who received the contracts? What does the Auditor-General say? What do the communities affected by the project say?
That is not hostility. That is accountability. Democracy depends not only on elections but also on institutions capable of asking questions between elections. The media is one of those institutions. Indeed, the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical framework places “seeking truth and reporting it”, acting independently, and holding those with power accountable at the centre of journalism’s democratic responsibility. In Nigeria, where political power often comes with enormous control over public resources, the journalist who simply accepts official explanations risks becoming part of the machinery of public relations rather than public accountability. From Jeremy Paxman to Mehdi Hasan, adversarial interviewing is not a Nigerian invention. Some of the world’s most respected broadcast journalists have built their reputations by asking powerful people questions they would rather avoid.
Britain’s Jeremy Paxman, during his years on Newsnight, became famous for persistent questioning that made politicians repeatedly defend their positions rather than simply deliver prepared talking points. Christiane Amanpour has similarly developed an international reputation for tough interviews with political leaders and powerful figures, particularly on questions of war, human rights and international affairs. Tim Sebastian, through Hard Talk, established another influential model of the journalist who relentlessly tests the claims of political leaders and public officials. More recently, Mehdi Hasan became particularly known for forensic interviews built around preparation, evidence, quotations and contradictions. His approach demonstrates an important point: the effectiveness of adversarial journalism does not necessarily come from shouting. It comes from knowing the subject better than the person being interviewed expects.
The interviewer who knows the facts has an advantage over the politician who has come prepared with slogans. The tradition extends beyond television. Investigative journalists such as the late Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia demonstrated the extraordinary risks journalists sometimes take when they investigate corruption and entrenched political and economic interests. Her murder in 2017 remains one of the most disturbing reminders of the dangers journalists can face when they challenge powerful networks. The lesson is clear: journalism’s watchdog role is not an abstract democratic ideal. In some societies, it can come at enormous personal cost. Enter Rufai Oseni. In Nigeria, one of the most recognisable contemporary examples of this approach is Rufai Oseni of Arise News. Oseni has become known for a style of interviewing that is unusually direct, persistent and confrontational by Nigerian broadcast standards.
His interviews frequently involve challenging politicians over policy, government expenditure, public statements and political claims. Supporters see this as fearless journalism. Critics sometimes see it as excessive, abrasive or unnecessarily combative. That controversy is precisely why Oseni provides an interesting case study. The important question should not be whether everyone likes his style. The question should be: Does his approach make people in positions of power answer questions they might otherwise avoid? If the answer is yes, then Nigerian journalism should pay attention.
A recent academic study examining Oseni’s political interviews found that face-threatening and challenging strategies can function as socially accepted forms of adversarial accountability within the Nigerian media environment. The recent controversy involving Oseni and Lere Olayinka, an aide to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, illustrates the debate perfectly. Olayinka declined to answer Oseni’s questions during an appearance on The Morning Show, prompting renewed discussion about where legitimate adversarial interviewing ends and inappropriate confrontation begins. That distinction matters. Adversarial does not mean abusive. There is a danger in celebrating adversarial journalism without qualification. A journalist should not become an activist with a microphone. There is a difference between challenging power and persecuting a guest. A good adversarial journalist must still respect facts, give people an opportunity to respond, distinguish allegations from established facts and correct mistakes when they occur.
The strongest adversarial journalist is therefore not necessarily the loudest journalist. It is the journalist who is best prepared. A politician should be able to answer a difficult question.
But the journalist should also be able to defend the question with facts. That is the standard Nigeria’s media should strive for. Why does Nigeria need this journalism now? Nigeria’s current political and economic environment makes adversarial journalism particularly relevant. The country is dealing with enormous public-policy questions: the cost of living, taxation, public debt, insecurity, unemployment, infrastructure spending, oil-sector reforms, subsidy-related policies, government expenditure and allegations of corruption. These are not issues that can be adequately covered by simply reporting what ministers, governors, lawmakers and political parties say.
Official statements are only one side of the story. The journalist must ask the second question.
And then the third. And then the fourth. Where is the money? What happened to the promise? Who benefited? What evidence supports this claim? Why did the government say one thing yesterday and another today? What does the data show? These questions are uncomfortable because they are supposed to be uncomfortable. If journalism becomes so polite that powerful people can appear on television, make unchallenged claims and leave without having been properly interrogated, democracy loses one of its most important accountability mechanisms. The Nigerian political system makes the watchdog role even more important. Nigeria’s democracy is not simply characterised by elections. It is also characterised by enormous political competition for control of state resources. In such an environment, journalists cannot afford to become excessively dependent on access to politicians. Access journalism has its advantages. Political sources provide information. Officials provide explanations. Governments need platforms to communicate policies.
But access can also create a subtle problem. When journalists become too concerned about maintaining access to powerful people, they may become reluctant to ask questions that could jeopardise that relationship. That is where adversarial journalism performs an important corrective function. The journalist must be able to say: “I may lose access to you, but I will not lose my obligation to the public.” That is the essence of independence. Nigeria’s corruption problem requires more than routine reporting. Academic research published in 2026 on investigative journalism in Nigeria argues that watchdog journalism retains a strong role in exposing corruption and promoting democratic governance, while also highlighting weaknesses in investigative capacity within the Nigerian press. This is important. Nigeria does not necessarily suffer from a shortage of political news. Every day, newspapers, television stations, radio stations and online platforms report statements by politicians.
What Nigeria needs more of is journalism that interrogates those statements. There is a difference between reporting: “The minister says the government has spent N500 billion on infrastructure.” And asking: “Where exactly was the N500 billion spent, which contracts received the money, who were the beneficiaries, what projects were delivered and can the expenditure be independently verified?” The first is reporting. The second begins to look like accountability journalism. Adversarial journalism gives citizens a seat at the table. The most important beneficiary of tough journalism is not the journalist. It is the citizen. Most Nigerians cannot sit across the table from a minister. They cannot summon a governor to explain government expenditure. They cannot question a presidential adviser about a policy. They cannot interrogate a lawmaker about legislative decisions. The journalist does that on their behalf. When Rufai Oseni asks a government official a difficult question, the question is ultimately not Rufai’s. It belongs to the Nigerian public. That is why journalists must remember who they work for. Not the president. Not the governor. Not the minister. Not the political party. Not the billionaire businessman. The public.
But the media must also interrogate itself. There is another uncomfortable truth. Adversarial journalism can become dangerous when the journalist begins to believe that being controversial is the same thing as being courageous. It is not. A journalist can be loud and still be wrong. A journalist can be aggressive and still be poorly informed. A journalist can embarrass a politician without actually exposing anything important. The goal should therefore not be confrontation for confrontation’s sake. The goal should be accountability through evidence.
This is where Rufai Oseni’s style and the broader debate surrounding it should be judged. If his tough questioning is backed by facts, documents, data and knowledge of the subject, then it represents an important form of watchdog journalism. If any journalist crosses into personal abuse, prejudgment or sensationalism, the profession should call it out regardless of who the journalist is. The public interest must remain the standard.
So, why is adversarial journalism Nigeria’s most necessary journalism at this time? Nigeria does not need a journalism that is permanently hostile to government. It needs a journalism that is permanently independent of government. When government does something good, journalists should report it. When government does something wrong, journalists should expose it. When opposition politicians make false claims, journalists should challenge them too. When powerful businessmen influence public policy, journalists should investigate them. When the government spends public money, journalists should follow the money. When an ordinary citizen is abused by the state, journalists should give that citizen a platform. That is what a functioning watchdog looks like.
The Nigerian media therefore needs more journalists who are willing to ask difficult questions, not necessarily more journalists who are willing to shout. The distinction is crucial. Adversarial journalism is not about being against government. It is about being against unaccountable power. And in a democracy struggling with corruption, weak institutions, political patronage and public distrust, that distinction could not be more important. Perhaps the easiest journalist for those in power to deal with is the journalist who never asks a difficult question. The journalist who accepts the press release. The journalist who reports the speech. The journalist who takes the official explanation and moves on. But democracy was never designed to make powerful people comfortable. Democracy requires scrutiny. It requires questions. It requires disagreement. It requires citizens who can obtain information about how those governing them exercise power. And it requires journalists prepared to stand between public power and public interest.
That is why the rise of adversarial journalism in Nigeria should not automatically be dismissed as “rudeness” or “bad manners.” It should provoke a more serious conversation about what journalism is supposed to accomplish. Rufai Oseni is not necessarily the perfect embodiment of this tradition, and no journalist is. But his style has forced an important question into Nigeria’s national conversation: Should journalists merely interview power, or should they interrogate it? At this particular moment in Nigeria’s democratic journey, the answer should be obvious. Interrogate it. Respectfully when possible. Aggressively when necessary. But always with facts. Because when power knows that someone will ask the next question, it becomes a little harder to hide behind the first answer. And sometimes, in a democracy, the most important question is the one a powerful person desperately does not want to answer.
•Fuhad, head of station at Mainland 98.3FM, writes from Lagos.
The post Not rude, just relentless: The case for adversarial journalism in Nigeria appeared first on Vanguard News.