The African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, said he is embarrassed that a mere news story was elevated to the level of an electoral projection.
NEWSNGR reports that Abdullahi expressed his displeasure while reacting to a recent report by The Economist on President Bola Tinubu’s chances in the 2027 presidential election.
The Economist had reported that Tinubu could retain the presidency in 2027 despite public discontent over insecurity and economic hardship.
However, Abdullahi, in an interview with Trust TV, described the report as ‘poor journalism’, saying that the fact that The Economist published it did not automatically make its conclusion credible.
According to the ADC spokesperson, the report was based on limited interviews conducted in Borno, which he said could not reasonably be used to draw conclusions about the entire country.
Abdullahi, a former newspaper editor, said he would have rejected such a report if it had been submitted to him during his time at ThisDay newspaper.
He said. “I’m embarrassed the way we are elevating a mere story to the level of an electoral projection, and if this were a logic class, then we would be guilty of what is called argumentum ad veracundiam.
“I read that story, and I think even as a piece of journalism it’s poor journalism. The fact that it’s published by The Economist does not excuse the fact that it is poor journalism.
“How do I mean? When you sit in one place in Borno, and probably Borno town, just the town, then you spoke to a couple of people and used that to extrapolate for the entire country, that’s not journalism.
“That’s not the way we do this work. And like I said on a different TV platform yesterday, if a reporter brought that to me as an editor, when I was at ThisDay newspaper, I would throw it back at him and say it’s lazy reporting.”
Asked whether his criticism meant The Economist was a lazy platform, Abdullahi distinguished between the publication and the particular report.
He added, “I’m saying that that story is poor journalism, and it cannot be excused just because it was published by The Economist.”
