Paul Ibe, media adviser to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, has defended his principal’s decision to address President Bola Tinubu by his first name, arguing that the use of “Bola” does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence under Nigerian law.
Ibe made the argument in a post on X on Friday, October 2, following criticism of Atiku’s Independence Day address, in which the former vice-president referred to the president as “Bola”.
Atiku is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and his choice of words has prompted a wider debate about political etiquette, respect for public office and freedom of expression.
Aide cites constitutional provisions
In defending Atiku, Ibe referred to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in written law.
“Bola is the President’s name, right? There is no Nigerian law that makes it a criminal offence to address a president by his first name,” Ibe said.
He argued that criticism of the former vice-president’s wording should not automatically be treated as evidence of criminal conduct.
Ibe also cited Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, as part of his broader argument in defence of Atiku’s remarks.
His statement was a response to the criticism, rather than a court ruling on the specific controversy.
Debate over respect for the presidency
The dispute has exposed differing views about how political leaders should address the holder of Nigeria’s highest public office.
Critics of Atiku’s wording have characterised it as disrespectful to the presidency, while Ibe maintains that using the president’s first name does not automatically amount to an offence.
The distinction is between a question of political convention or courtesy and a question of criminal liability. Public figures can disagree over the tone of political communication without that disagreement necessarily establishing that a law has been broken.
The constitutional provision cited by Ibe concerns the legal basis required for criminal offences and punishment. Whether particular conduct violates any other applicable law would depend on the specific facts and legal provisions involved.
Political exchanges continue ahead of 2027
The exchange comes as political figures increasingly use Independence Day addresses, interviews and social media posts to communicate their positions on governance and the economy ahead of the 2027 general election.
Atiku has been critical of the Tinubu administration, while government supporters have defended the president’s policies and challenged opposition messaging.
The latest dispute illustrates how even the language used by political leaders can become part of a broader contest over public perception.
For now, Ibe’s position is that Atiku committed no offence by using Tinubu’s first name. The controversy remains a debate over political etiquette and the interpretation of constitutional freedoms, rather than evidence of a criminal conviction.